Introduction: Lord Lingfield

Sir Robert George Alexander Balchin, Knight, having been created Baron Lingfield, of Lingfield in the County of Surrey, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Wakeham and Lord Boyce, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Feldman of Elstree

Andrew Simon Feldman, Esquire, having been created Baron Feldman of Elstree, of Elstree in the County of Hertfordshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Harris of Peckham and Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Dobbs

Michael John Dobbs, Esquire, having been created Baron Dobbs, of Wylye in the County of Wiltshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Tebbit and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Crime: Age of Responsibility
	 — 
	Question

The Earl of Listowel: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the age of criminal responsibility as recommended in the recent report on youth justice by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children.

Lord McNally: My Lords, the Government have no current plans to review the age of criminal responsibility.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he recognise that the journey of many of the 10 to 13 year-olds entering the criminal justice system begins with alcoholic parents, continues with a disruptive mix of foster care, children's homes and different schools and concludes with entry into the criminal justice system and that the stamp of criminal conviction confirms their feelings of low self-esteem? Given the shortcomings in the care system recognised by the coalition Government, do they consider the low age of criminal responsibility in this country to be consistent internationally, when it is two years below the minimum age of 12 recommended by the committee on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl's continuing interest in these matters. I do not think that there is a conflict between the age of criminal responsibility and the kinds of concerns that he expresses. The whole thrust of our policy is to intervene as early and as positively as possible with young offenders. The factors that lead young people to offend are complex and can often include the circumstances that the noble Earl mentioned. That is why children who offend are referred to local multi-agency youth offending teams, which take a holistic approach to tackling the causes of offending, including housing, education, health and parenting issues.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Minister and his department have taken some good initiatives in recent days on criminal justice matters, but does he not accept that the age of criminality is far too low for children and its impact on their rehabilitation is far too severe? Will he look at international practices in relation to children and consider what good practices could be adopted in this country, bearing in mind that we have probably one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I concede that we are at the lower end of the age of criminal responsibility. The department and all the authorities concerned look at international comparisons and practices. For the moment, we hold firm that, although the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years, the thrust of the policy when children come into the care of the authorities is not to feed them into the criminal justice system but to apply as vigorously and, as I mentioned in my previous answer, holistically as possible responses to their needs to try to avoid them reoffending.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords-

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords-

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the Question started on the Cross Benches. Does the Minister recognise that, while fewer children enter the criminal justice system under the age of 14 than over the age of 14, the younger the child is the more likely that she or he will go on to become prolific offenders? Will the Minister look at what money could be saved by diverting these young people into the welfare system? Does he further recognise that, once a child is drawn into the criminal justice system, he or she is likely to be there for a long time? All this fits in exactly with the aims that the Minister said his department is interested in fostering. Why is he being so cautious about this one?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I do not think that the department is being cautious. The noble Lord's first point is true: the difference in costs between putting young people into custody and finding alternative treatments is out of all proportion-it is tenfold. Therefore, there are both financial and practical attractions in this. I go back to the point that, although the age is low, the thrust of policy is in the direction that the noble Lord is pointing. For example, the pilots on intensive fostering, which were started by the previous Administration, are well worth studying and are very encouraging. The cost of intensive fostering is about a tenth of that of keeping a young person in youth custody. I accept fully his point about the danger that, once children under the age of 14 are in the criminal justice system, they will stay in it and go up the escalator of offending. That danger is very real, which is why we are trying to address these problems.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for my impetuosity. I accept that it is necessary to maintain a proper balance between the protection of society and the interests of a young person or child, in the context of acting humanely, but does not the Minister recognise that, whereas the average for the age of responsibility the world over is about 14, we are very much lower than that? In consequence, we incarcerate four times as many of these young people as Portugal and 25 times as many as Belgium.

Lord McNally: My Lords, our general record on incarceration has been questioned by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and we have put forward proposals to try to address it. As for young people, I agree entirely. We are trying to make a system that diverts young people from criminal activity while understanding that the activities of young people can be disruptive and frightening to the general population. We have to keep that balance in addressing the issue but, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said in his supplementary, every time one looks at offending, the same three, four or five issues keep coming through: disruptive families, poor education, drugs or whatever. That suggests that the sensible thing to do in order to attack crime rates is to address these underlying issues.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is not the root of this problem-and it is a serious problem-gang culture and not age? Something should be done about gang culture. I do not know how to do it, but somebody should know. To talk about age diminishes the real substance of this problem.

Lord McNally: My Lords, as so often, the noble Lord puts his finger on a very real problem. I assure him that my department is looking at the issue of gang culture with a number of associated organisations.

Benefits
	 — 
	Question

Lord German: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their proposals for tailoring the benefits system to individuals' needs.

Lord Freud: My Lords, the Government's reforms to the welfare-to-work system will make it more responsive to the needs of individuals. Jobcentre Plus advisers and providers of the work programme will have flexibility to tailor support to customers' needs, rather than having support prescribed by central government. Under our plans for a universal credit, individuals will keep more of their benefits when working and will see a clear gain in working compared to not working at all.

Lord German: I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The whole purpose of the benefit reforms that the Government are undertaking is to provide those who can with the dignity of work and those who need support with the knowledge that they have the full support of the state behind them. The experience of government so far has not been too good in some cases. The Harrington review found that the system was,
	"impersonal, mechanistic and lacking in clarity".
	Will my noble friend tell us when the recommendations of the Harrington review will be implemented and when changes will be brought into effect that will give people that dignity and the support that the state can provide?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The work capability assessment has been looked at once internally and now by Professor Harrington. We are committed to bringing in those reforms as quickly as possible-ideally, all of them by the time we have all the existing IB claimants reassessed with a view to going over to ESA.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when it comes to assessing individual needs, the benefits received by carers are of extreme importance to families in need? Some weeks ago, the Minister said that no decision had yet been made about how to treat the carer's allowance in the benefit reforms. Has any further progress been made towards that decision?

Lord Freud: My Lords, we are working on fine-tuning the whole of the universal credit system. One of the key issues is the design of how carers' allowances go into that. We are still not in a position to say where we have got to precisely, but we will make it clear pretty soon.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, in what way does the Minister consider that docking 10 per cent off someone's housing benefit after they have been a year on JSA is meeting their individual needs?

Lord Freud: The purpose of our reforms is to make sure that there is a very strong incentive for people to find work and, once they find work, to work. That is the purpose of that reform.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I learnt last week of a severely disabled person in the Pendle area who had failed to receive their giro for incapacity benefit, which I think is now called ESA. They decided to telephone and tried several times a day for four consecutive days. Will the Minister kindly tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that Jobcentre Plus provides much needed help to those who really deserve it?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I am obviously disturbed to hear what the right reverend Prelate has told us about this case. When we find cases and I am alerted to them, we react rapidly to make sure that the individual case is sorted out. If he lets me have the details, I will deal with it.

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether Jobcentre Plus decision-makers in particular will have extra training following the Harrington review so that they can take into account what the review said about those with mental health problems and fluctuating conditions?

Lord Freud: Yes, my Lords. One of Professor Harrington's main recommendations is to put more power back in the hands of the decision-makers in Jobcentre Plus. Clearly, we will be looking to make sure that they exercise that power effectively, particularly because we need to reduce the number of appeals to tribunals. We need to get the decision right first time.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, now that the Minister has seen the report, which shows that the number of children living in poverty will increase under the Government's proposals, and given the good work that he did in advising the Labour Government, under whom the number of children living in poverty went down year after year, does he not feel a wee bit embarrassed explaining away the policies of this awful Tory-led coalition Government?

Lord Freud: My Lords, the noble Lord will accept that I beg to differ on part of that question. The universal credit will have a powerful effect on poverty and will at least balance some of the other effects of the reforms. One needs to see all the reforms in their entirety.

Baroness Browning: Does my noble friend accept that people on the autistic spectrum and those with learning disabilities will find it very difficult to respond to a letter requiring them to attend an assessment or for somebody to visit their home without preparation being done, so that they are comfortable and supported and know exactly what to expect?

Lord Freud: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. One of Professor Harrington's recommendations was to make the whole process far more empathetic and to work with people rather than, if you like, doing things in a more hostile way. Looking after people who have autism is one thing that we want to make sure that we do. In my view, people who are autistic could benefit more than virtually anyone else from the package of measures in the work programme that we are introducing. These are people who can work if they are helped to do so.

NHS: Targets
	 — 
	Question

Lord Wills: To ask Her Majesty's Government what they propose the role of targets in the National Health Service should be.

Earl Howe: My Lords, from 2012-13 the NHS commissioning board will be responsible for the delivery of NHS services, based on the NHS outcomes framework. The operating framework for the NHS published last week sets out the priorities for the NHS for the transition year of 2011-12 and details how the NHS will move to a health economy driven by outcomes for 2012-13.

Lord Wills: I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. He will recall that, in October, the Health Secretary said that the coalition never committed to a one-week target for cancer patients to get their test results
	"because there is not enough clinical evidence to support it".
	However, in November, the noble Earl the Minister told this House that a
	"one-week access target would not be the best use of the resources that we have".-[Official Report, 11/11/10; col. 319.]
	Why exactly did the Government scrap the target? Was it the cost, or was there a clinical justification? If it was both, which justification was the most important? If the clinical evidence played any part in this decision, could he please place the evidence in the Library of the House?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the announcement made by the previous Government for the one-week target was an unfunded, as well as very expensive, commitment. At the moment, the median wait for the 15 key diagnostic tests is 1.8 weeks-it fluctuates between 1.5 weeks and thereabouts. To bring that down to a maximum of one week would have cost many hundreds of millions of pounds. We judged that there are better ways in which to speed up access to diagnostic tests for a lot less money. That is why we recently announced that £25 million will be made available next year to help GPs to get direct access to tests for cancer without first having to make an appointment with a specialist. That money will buy up to 150,000 extra tests. We have thought round this problem-if I may put it that way-and thought around the conventional referral pathways. I believe that we will arrive at a very satisfactory result.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the Minister tell me his view as to how exactly things will work? Although some targets were considered bad, unnecessary and unproductive, others produced some good results. Will the targets be replaced by a code of practice or guidance, or will people simply be left to manage as best they can?

Earl Howe: My noble friend is right. Of course the waiting time target achieved a great deal in bringing down waits for elective procedures, but the target had some unwanted effects in that it distorted clinical priorities and, many people felt, took the focus away from many areas of care that deserved greater focus. We need to focus on outcomes for patients. Therefore, instead of setting process-based targets, our aim will be to ensure that, wherever possible, the NHS uses the measures that clinicians themselves use as a basis for improving their services-in other words, measures that are clinically credible and evidence based. That is how we have tried to frame the outcomes framework.

Lord Davies of Coity: Does not the Minister agree that the Secretary of State's proposals for competitiveness within the health service will in effect privatise the NHS?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not accept that. The previous Government recognised that contestability in the provision of care was a very powerful driver to improve quality of services. I do not think that privatisation of the health service will result from the proposals. We will reach a better stage of quality in provision of care only if we allow the best providers out there to compete for services. As long as the principles of the NHS remain-which they will do under this Government-for a service free at the point of need without being based on ability to pay, we will have the NHS that we all know and love.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords-

Lord Patel: My Lords-

Noble Lords: Cross Benches!

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, given that the Government have committed themselves to clinical outcomes and measurable improvements in patient well-being, how will the Government ensure that managerial demands for the kind of target culture that we experienced previously will not overwhelm any attempts to measure clinical outcome or patient well-being?

Earl Howe: My Lords, many of the data that will underpin the monitoring of the outcomes framework are already collected as a matter of routine but are just not used. In the outcomes framework, we shall reduce the number of outcomes to many fewer than have been in play under the previous Government's process-based targets. We do not see our proposals as imposing unnecessary or impossible extra burdens on the NHS.

Lord Patel: I need to cultivate a louder voice, obviously. Can the Minister give an example of where competition in healthcare delivery has improved outcomes?

Earl Howe: I am sorry that the noble Lord is a sceptic on these matters. In the field of mental health care, for example, where there is a long-standing position of private sector contestability, we have seen that standards have been driven up. There is no doubt that the foundation trust model has also paved the way for higher quality in healthcare.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, turning to waiting lists for accident and emergency services, which we obviously want to provide the highest possible care, I want to ask how the newly proposed scheme will improve the quality of care. For example, how will the abolition of the 19-minute response time to a 999 call that is not life threatening affect the health outcome for an elderly lady who has slipped and broken her wrist on the ice? Such a slip may not be life threatening, but the elderly lady may wait for quite some time for an ambulance and then wait considerably longer than four hours in accident and emergency. Is the waiting time not an outcome here? If the Government do not intend to introduce a new outcomes framework for two years, would the Government not be better to leave the current guarantees in place because we know that they ensure patient safety?

Earl Howe: My Lords, on ambulance response times, the existing eight-minute target will remain in place for category A calls. For category B calls, which are serious but not immediately life threatening, Peter Bradley, who is the national ambulance director, has been working with Professor Cooke to develop a set of 11 clinical quality indicators for the ambulance service. We are clear that those indicators will provide a much better and more rounded set of objectives than a mere 19-minute response time. Of course response times are important, but there are other things that should be focused on as well. We hope to improve standards in this way as from April next year.

Individual Savings Accounts
	 — 
	Question

Lord Lee of Trafford: To ask Her Majesty's Government why shares listed on the Alternative Investment Market are excluded from eligibility from individual savings accounts.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as owning an ISA and a number of shares in AIM-quoted companies.

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, individual savings accounts are the Government's main non-pensions savings incentive and are held by 20 million adults. The Government believe that ISAs should be mainstream savings products and therefore do not intend to allow shares on the Alternative Investment Market, which can be riskier and less liquid, to be qualifying investments for ISAs. Companies listed on AIM may already benefit from other incentive schemes, such as the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer but I find it very thin and disappointing. The arguments for allowing AIM shares to be eligible for ISAs are, frankly, overwhelming. They are supported by the Stock Exchange and the Quoted Companies Alliance. Eligibility would widen the shareholder base, improve liquidity and facilitate fundraising. It would also be tax neutral from the Treasury's point of view. What is the logic in allowing AIM shares to be eligible for SIPPs but not for ISAs? I thought that the policy of this coalition Government was to encourage personal choice and indeed investment in our smaller growing companies.

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, who has been assiduous over the months in asking questions about AIM shares and ISAs. Within the range of products available, there are distinct differences between the aims of ISAs and those of other savings channels. When the ISA was introduced in 1999-and it has been an enormously successful investment channel-it was intended to be a mainstream product with easy access and liquidity. A line therefore has to be drawn between the sort of investments that are thought suitable to qualify and those that are not. AIM shares were kept out in 1999 and I believe that it is still appropriate, taking into account principally the nature of the product and the ease of access to liquidity investment, that they should be. SIPPs, which are a more sophisticated, tailored pension product with a different time horizon-for example, they do not require 30-day withdrawal-can rightly benefit from having a much wider range of investments held within them.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of an AIM-listed company that may not benefit from the method that the noble Lord, Lord Lee, recommends. I recognise that the response that the Minister has given is based on the best possible advice available to him, but I am not sure that he is right in the general sense. Would he be prepared to go back to his advisers and ask them at least to reconsider his answer, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee, makes a reasonable case?

Lord Sassoon: I am sorry to shut the door on this one, but the Government have considered this issue since we came into office, just as no doubt the previous Government had plenty of advice since they introduced ISAs in 1999. We have looked at it again and I am sorry to say to both the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and my noble friend Lord Lee that I cannot hold out any other prospect. The AIM market continues to thrive. At the moment, almost 1,200 companies are quoted on it, 974 of which are UK companies, and the market is quoted at £67.6 billion, so it continues to be in good health in what I recognise are challenging investment conditions.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a director of an AIM-listed company. What tests are not applied to AIM-listed companies that are applied to full exchange-listed companies? Does the Minister accept that the boards of AIM-listed companies feel that they are subject-indeed, they are subject-to the same accounting rigour as FTSE-listed companies and that it is therefore now completely illogical to maintain this distinction?

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, without wishing at all to cast aspersions on the quality of AIM companies, it is nevertheless the fact that you can come to the AIM market without a trading record and with no minimum number of shares in public hands. Also, the UK Listing Authority does not usually vet the prospectus of AIM-listed companies and there is no minimum capitalisation requirement. Therefore, there are different requirements and obligations on AIM companies from those that apply to listed companies.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that, with his reply, he has disappointed a wide range of opinion in the House, including- to complete the position-Her Majesty's Official Opposition? He will know that earlier this year we were looking positively towards this issue. We would have thought that the present Government would adopt something more than just a straightforward negative stance on a situation where it is quite clear that, with SIPPs being able to invest in these companies, there is a good case that ISA investors should be able to as well.

Lord Sassoon: I did not want to be controversial in the week running up to the holidays. I pointed out that ISAs were introduced by the last Government and that they have been a successful channel for savings. I gently point out, however, that the last Government had from 1999 to May 2010 if they had wanted to make AIM shares eligible for ISAs, but they chose-rightly, I think-not to do so. We have not taken a decade to mull over this, but we have thought about it carefully in the last few months.

Arrangement of Business
	 — 
	Announcement

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, at a convenient point after 4.30 pm, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will repeat a Statement on the European Council, followed immediately by my noble friend Baroness Neville-Jones, who will repeat an Urgent Question as a Statement on the temporary immigration cap. At the conclusion of the Statement on the immigration cap, the House will then return to the proceedings on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. At a convenient point after 6.45 pm, my noble friend Earl Attlee will repeat a Statement on the severe winter weather.

Business of the House
	 — 
	Motion on Standing Orders

Moved By Lord Strathclyde
	That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Loans to Ireland Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.
	Motion agreed.

HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom Committee
	 — 
	Membership Motion

Moved By The Chairman of Committees
	That a Select Committee be appointed to consider HIV and AIDS in the United Kingdom, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
	L Fowler (Chairman), L Gardiner of Kimble, B Gould of Potternewton, B Healy of Primrose Hill, B Hussein-Ece, L McColl of Dulwich, B McIntosh of Hudnall, B Masham of Ilton, L May of Oxford, L Rea, B Ritchie of Brompton and B Tonge;
	That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
	That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published;
	That the Committee do report by 20 July 2011;
	That the Report of the Committee shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
	Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Bill Main Page
	Copy of the Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments

Committee (6th Day)

Clause 8 : Commencement or repeal of amending provisions
	Amendment 43A not moved.
	Amendment 44
	 Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
	44: Clause 8, page 6, line 6, after ""No"" insert "in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland"

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, before I address Amendment 44, as the Leader of the House responded earlier in this Committee to the question of thresholds when a convincing case against a threshold was given, I would like to leave him with one thought. I understand that the Government, or another part of them, are considering thresholds for trade union ballots. It might be useful, by the time we get to a response, to see whether that is the case and whether, if it is fit for a goose at this time of year, it may also be fit for a gander.
	Amendment 44, which stands in my name, would ensure that there was a majority in favour of AV in all four countries of the United Kingdom in order for the new voting system to be automatically triggered. Having heard from my noble friend Lord Lipsey at an earlier stage in this Committee, I am confident that there is no difference between the four countries on AV, so I anticipate no problems in this regard. However, it seems a sensible safeguard against the possibility, for example, of Scotland voting yes to AV by a large majority, given that Scottish Parliament elections are taking place at the same time, England then voting no but by a small margin and the Scots then holding sway over England, and not simply on the football pitch.
	Of course, the other might happen; Wales emphatically votes no along with Scotland but England and Northern Ireland then combine to impose their yes preference on the other two countries. It is difficult to judge whether any such outcome will arise. Perhaps the Scots and the Welsh, having used variants of electoral systems over the years, will now be much more relaxed about further changes, and will understand how a more proportional and fairer system can better reflect their choices at the ballot box. On the other hand, they may feel that they have enough systems and simply do not want another. I do not claim to be an expert on this. Nor do I have any evidence of the likelihood of different turnouts or preferences across the four countries. What I do know is that there could be discontent should one of our four nations feel, having heard and seen the outcome of the four separate counts, that its will is trumped by the votes of the other nations.
	As with the issue of low turnout and the absence of a threshold requirement, I am uncertain how we, as a UK Parliament, would deal with such eventualities. However, I am certain that any such discrepancy should come back to the Government and, indeed, to Parliament to consider before that automatic trigger, following the referendum, is set on course. It may be, as happened in France, Denmark and Ireland with their European referendums at different times, that the question is adjusted in some way or is retabled, with more time for debate and persuasion: or we could consider having different election systems in the four countries-I do not know.
	However, I am clear that, given our devolved nations, it would be right to pause and consider should the results be greatly different in the four countries. As I have indicated, it is not an outcome that I foresee but it is always so much better, with good risk management, to anticipate, assess and mitigate any risk beforehand, rather than have to scrabble around afterwards making hasty corrections. It is not an impossible outcome, but it is an unlikely one, so let us give it some thought before it happens by removing the automaticity of triggering the new system should one country's voice be at variance with those of the other three. I beg to move.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to this amendment. I am particularly pleased to respond to my noble friend Lady Hayter. It is a little known fact that explains much; we started work together in the research department of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, then under the plebeian leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Radice, around 1970. We have been arguing ever since but have remained the closest of friends, and I will argue briefly with her tonight.
	I am always surprised when keen first past the posters argue for thresholds and various other forms of fiddling the rules. Under the first past the post system, however few votes the person who gets more votes than anyone else gets, they win. I thought that was what attracted people to that system. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment and I can see why she has done so. However, it would lead to some extraordinarily paradoxical conclusions. Let us say that the election result went as follows in an AV referendum. In England, 7 million people voted yes and 3 million people voted no-a huge victory for AV. Let us suppose that corresponding margins occurred in Northern Ireland or Scotland, but the Welsh in their wisdom-as an adopted Welshman, I think there is much wisdom in Wales-voted, on roughly the same turnout, with 251,000 against AV and 249,000 for AV. In that case the 251,000 would trump the majority of 4 million-plus in the rest of the United Kingdom, and AV would not go ahead.
	I can quite understand those who say that this should be an advisory referendum-we moved an earlier amendment to this Bill to that effect and that has good scope-but simply to do it on the basis that one country has voted yes and one country has voted no is not good cause for a review.
	We are a united kingdom. Our national elections have to be run as though they were national elections for the Government of the United Kingdom, and to seek to set one nation within that kingdom against another kingdom is neither desirable nor wise. I therefore very much hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment tonight because for once in our long life I would not be able to support her in the Lobbies.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I find it very strange that the party that seems to be supporting first past the post is the one that is refusing first past the post in a referendum. If you win by one in a constituency at the moment, you have won. However, if you win by one without a threshold, you have lost. I really cannot make much sense out of that argument.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: What about the party that says that everyone should have 50 per cent of the vote and is now advocating that that should not apply in a referendum?

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: That is not, of course, what we say. It is the argument of a coalition of dinosaurs who say that in the old days you could have just two parties in a constituency. As I have argued before, one is bound to get 50 per cent. If you have 6.3 parties, which was the average in last May's election, it does not work in the same way. Nearly every member will be elected on a minority vote. We must accept that.
	The first referendum I remember was on the Sunday opening of pubs in Wales. No one mentioned a threshold-no one was going to risk doing that-so it was carried in some counties and not in others. There was no threshold. Then we came to the European Union and whether we stayed in or stayed out. There was no talk of a threshold there. The only talk of a threshold was in the first referendum on devolution. Then you had a threshold, and both Scotland and Wales failed to reach it. Then came the next referendum on devolution, and there was no threshold. I am told that when Northern Ireland had its Good Friday referendum, there was no threshold.
	Why are we making this exception now? We are doing so purely to try to destroy this AV proposal, and nothing else. I can see the argument going thus-let us delay the Bill and talk at length so we miss that May deadline. That would mean that the turnout would be down, perhaps in October, and it would be said that not enough people voted this time; perhaps only 20 per cent voted.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on these subjects. He has been telling me in public and in private for many years that there is enormous enthusiasm for getting rid of this dreadful-as he would say-first past the post system. I really cannot believe that he is beginning to doubt now that the public will not queue up to vote when the day comes.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My experience in Wales is that, as we have argued time after time, a referendum held on the day of local elections in England and elections for the Assembly in Wales, for Parliament in Scotland or for the Assembly in Northern Ireland would naturally have a greater turnout. Therefore you would not need a threshold. In the autumn, however, you might say that only 25 per cent have voted, as they might, and then we need a threshold. This seems to me to be just an argument to try by any means whatever to destroy any hope of a change in our electoral system in the United Kingdom.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I see that a number of new Members are attending our debate today, and I draw attention in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, being in his place. While he has been away-no doubt he has been in the House, but has not been attending our debates-statements have been made that should be drawn to his attention, because they might make him as angry as they made me. A statement made last week in the Housewas the subject of much discussion but the newspapers and media outside the House have not picked up on it. I refer to my intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which has caused a lot of concern, certainly among those who heard it. I asked him:
	"What happens if only 13 per cent of the registered electorate vote in favour of the change in the referendum question? Will that 13 per cent, which is one in eight people in the country, be taken as the basis on which we can make this huge constitutional change?".
	He replied:
	"My Lords, under the terms of the Bill, yes".-[Official Report, 15/12/10; col. 717.]
	I do not believe that Conservative Members of this House realise what is going on. They are not attending this debate and they very rarely speak, apart from two former Lord Chancellors. I do not believe that Conservative Members really know what is happening.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Although my noble friend may not realise it, I was, in fact, a Labour Lord Chancellor, not a Conservative one.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, forgive me; I did not mean that. I meant two former Chancellors of the Exchequer and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. The reality is that people do not know what is going on.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: The noble Lord speaks of massive constitutional changes. Was not the decision to remain in Europe a massive constitutional change? There was no threshold.

Lord Campbell-Savours: We provided a referendum on that and the public took a decision. What I am basically saying is that we need far more-

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Is it not ironic that we joined the European Union without a referendum, but that the referendum was on whether we should stay in? The major change took place without a referendum, but the referendum actually backed the status quo.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the then Government had the courage to hold a referendum on a separate day-on 5 June.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Those were two very useful interventions and I agree with them both. The reality is that this is an extraordinary Bill. It is the first time in my 30 years in Westminster that we are considering a Bill when we know that the Government-the Conservative element in the Government-are by an overwhelming majority opposed to the provisions in the Bill. I bet that if we were to have a free vote in the House of Lords, no more than a dozen Conservative Members would vote in favour of the referendum provision. In other words, this is a totally artificial debate. The Liberals are opposed because they have always been opposed. The Conservatives are opposed because they do not like AV at all and do not want any change from first past the post. To be frank, those on my own Benches are relatively divided on the issue.

Lord Grocott: Just for statistical reference, my estimate is that 70 per cent of those on the Labour Benches are in favour of first past the post.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I would call that relatively divided. The point is that this is a totally artificial debate. It would be really worrying if the turnout were to be only 13 per cent of the electorate. That was the figure that I picked, but if the overall turnout were to be as low as 18 or 19 per cent-as it was in some wards in Manchester that I checked on last week-you could find that approval in some parts of the country was as low as 10 per cent, representing only one in 10 voters.
	My noble friend has come forward with the politically reasonable suggestion that there will obviously be varying decisions in the various parts of the country. She is saying that there must be a majority in every part of the kingdom, but I would add the requirement for a threshold set on approval of the question, which we shall no doubt come to on Report.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I was not intending to speak but, having listened to this debate, I want to say that this is not an artificial exercise. It appears to be artificial to the noble Lord only because he gives an example of where something went adrift, but I can certainly give an example of where things went adrift with first past the post, which I support. I refer to the UKIP vote, which would have gone to the Conservatives and put them in power. It did not happen, but these things do occur. There is no perfect system, and the argument of the noble Lord, whom I usually greatly respect, seems to have gone adrift.

Lord Wills: My Lords, I share the concerns that have been raised about the thresholds but with this amendment my noble friend has raised some very important underlying concerns about the nature of the union which have not been fully explored. These are not simple issues; they are complex and they take in the changing shape of devolution in our country. These are very important issues for all of us who care about the maintenance of the union in this country. With this amendment, my noble friend has isolated the folly of rushing ahead with a referendum in this way. These complex issues relating to the nature of our union should be debated and decided by Parliament on the basis of the results of the referendum. It is folly to have a post-legislative referendum. I know that we have debated these matters already but I very much hope that the Government will consider them again. They are profoundly important and they should be debated by Parliament after the referendum-that is inherent in the nature of our representative democracy. I very much hope that the Government will think again and this House will be able to return to the matter on Report.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, it was very late when we last discussed this matter in Committee and some people were wilting. In reality, the amendment relating to a threshold of those eligible to vote, as featured in the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which I supported, and the remaining amendments in the same vein were discussed and are no longer on the Marshalled List. They all appear on the groupings list as having been already debated, and therefore there is no amendment before us today relating to a threshold of those eligible to vote. Perhaps there will be later, but certainly not today, and that will be very helpful in reducing the length of our discussions-something that I am sure will be welcome to all.
	As to the separate issue currently being put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, concerning whether there should be a required majority in each of the countries of the union, I am sorry to tell her that, having supported her earlier, on this occasion I support the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that we should not differentiate in that way.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, first, I should express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I am quite touched at the thought that he noticed that I had not been present in your Lordships' House very much recently. I am not sure whether he is pleased or less pleased about that but it was very nice of him to have noticed.
	Turning to the amendment, I confess that, as an integrationist rather than a devolutionist, I rather take the view that this is not the best way to go about tipping out of its dish this rather unpleasant dog's dinner of a proposal. I should prefer to do it cleanly, neatly and properly by imposing a 40 per cent turnout requirement. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Baroness on this, much as I have been tempted to do so.
	We have heard, of course, that there was no threshold requirement on the referendum on our continuing membership of the European Union. If I may say so, having voted yes in that referendum, I did not realise how wrong I was until some years later. What a pity there was no requirement for a higher turnout.
	I really regret I cannot support the noble Baroness but certainly, if and when we come to vote on a proposal to put in a 40 per cent floor requirement, then I will, indeed, be in favour of tipping the dinner out of the dog's bowl.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Would the noble Lord consider an approval threshold whereby a certain proportion of the registered national electorate should vote in favour of this huge constitutional change?

Lord Tebbit: I do not rule that out entirely but most helpful and obvious probably would be to have a requirement for a minimum turnout in order to be at all effective. I wait to listen, however. I should assure the noble Lord, by the way, that not being present in this House does not preclude one entirely from knowing what goes on. There is not only the printed word but the electronic media these days.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, appeared to be savouring the thought, albeit a little after the event, of a threshold in the referendum in relation to staying in the European Union or, as it was then called, the Common Market. In the event, however, that threshold would have been reached. My memory is there was a 2:1 majority in 1975 for staying in the Union, so even if his most fervent wish had been realised we would still be members of the European Union.

Lord Tebbit: I did not specify what the threshold should have been.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Touché. I can only respond by saying that most reasonable people, if they wish to have a threshold, would look to a reasonable threshold. I suspect that the threshold of the noble Lord would be something like 90 per cent or so in favour. Let us at least apply the test of reasonability.
	My noble friend, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned the actual turnout and I would ask noble Lords to look at the likely turnout in this referendum. My experience, among others, is that of the Welsh referendum in 1997 where, although there was a massive media campaign in Wales-it was the big issue-by all parties urging their supporters to vote in favour, the turnout was only 50 per cent of the electorate of Wales, and of that 50 per cent, 25 per cent plus one, or whatever, voted for, and 25 per cent voted against. If, therefore, one seeks to transpose that result of 1997 to today, amid the welter of concerns about cuts to housing benefit, the welfare state and so on, I cannot imagine, save for a small beltway or M25 elite, that there will be much interest in a referendum, and certainly very little interest in Scotland and Wales. I stand to be corrected by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who feels the pulse of Scotland rather better than I do, but we have to look at this reasonably.
	Whatever the attempts by the enthusiasts to drum up interest it will genuinely be very small, so we are in serious danger of effecting a major change in our constitution as a result of a very small turnout indeed.
	I want mostly to talk about thresholds in a later amendment, so I shall make just one or two comments on what was said by my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. My noble friend Lord Lipsey began by setting out his past with my noble friend Lady Hayter. I was trying to work out where my past with her began, and I think we go back a very long way. There was, alas, a hiatus for some time, but I recall with great affection the times we have worked together on a number of rather important issues. She sided with my noble friend Lord Lipsey and effectively said that it would be wrong in principle for one part of the United Kingdom to prevent the rest of the United Kingdom going forward. I do not intend to bore your Lordships with a long discussion of what has happened in other jurisdictions, but it is certainly not unknown in federal or quasi-federal systems for one component part of that federal or quasi-federal system effectively to have a veto over important issues going forward. That would be the case here because, like it or not, we are perhaps sleepwalking into a quasi-federal system.
	We have not yet got a fully fledged written constitution or a constitutional court, but the fact of devolution is making life in Wales and Scotland different. I left a very snowy Wales this morning-and Wales is different because even the snow I saw there this morning was whiter than the snow I can see here. I think it would be impertinent of us simply to say that we are integrationists and that we believe in the union, and not recognise that much has happened over the past 10 years or so. There is a distinct identity, which is why I am just a little puzzled-indeed, shocked-by what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, had to say. Normally, he is desperately keen to find any difference between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom-what in France they would call l'exception française. There is always something that one needs to find in respect of Wales being different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Now, with his zeal for constitutional reform, he is prepared to forget all that and go forwards juggernaut-like, forgetting that the interests of Wales, which may be very different, could well be trampled upon in this case. I said I would be brief and shall stop at this point. I simply say that I am mildly shocked at the unwillingness of my compatriot to look, as he does normally, at the Welsh exception.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: The point has been made that the amendment does not refer to any particular threshold, but Amendment 44, moved so lucidly by the noble Baroness, has no meaning, save in relation to the amendment that she moved last Wednesday night in this House and which she eventually, quite properly, withdrew. So there are two issues before the House: one is a threshold and the other is whether that threshold should apply individually in the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
	On the threshold, I spoke at some length on Wednesday, and I shall not repeat what I said, even for the benefit of those who did not have the joy of listening to me on that occasion. I would for once, and for perhaps the first time over many years, seek to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. As far as I am concerned, this is one of the most important constitutional issues imaginable. The Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats is absolutely correct in saying that it is the greatest constitutional issue since 1832. Therefore, accepting that, as I do with total sincerity, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept the sincerity of those of us who believe that it has to be dealt with in a very careful and special way. There is the remote possibility that only a very low percentage of the total electorate will turn out to vote. It could be on account of general apathy or it could possibly be on account of vicissitudes of weather. Just imagine if four inches of rain fell in two or three hours, which is the sort of situation we have seen in Devon, Cornwall and the West Country within the past few months. Worse still, there could be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in rural areas, paralysing all movement there. That has happened twice in the past 43 years. These are possibilities.
	The case I put on Wednesday I shall repeat in a few sentences. It is insurance against something that is only remotely possible, but if it did happen, it would be utterly disastrous. When we insure our houses against fire, we do not do so because there is a certainty that fire will occur, unless of course there is some sort of criminal intent. We do so not because we believe there is an even chance that fire will break out, or even that there is a remote chance of it. We do so because of the fraction of 1 per cent of a chance that it will happen, and in the main we pay a small and reasonable premium to guard against such a cataclysm. That is the basis on which these amendments should be considered in relation to thresholds.
	Secondly, this is not something that has been thought up out of the blue. Practically every country in the developed world has a threshold in respect of constitutional change. It is we who would be out of kilter if we reject this proposal, not the other way around. Indeed, it would be not only imprudent but arrogant of us to dismiss completely the prudent and responsible attitude of other countries in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in a most persuasive speech last Wednesday, pointed out exactly how other countries in the developed world look at this matter.
	On whether the threshold should apply to the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom, the argument I would put forward briefly is this. We are a United Kingdom, but we are not a dull, grey, homogenous mass. In other words, the constituent parts have their splendidly different and wonderfully distinctive characteristics that make up the real wealth and attractiveness of the United Kingdom. While it may not be perfect, this sort of amendment endorses that very principle. In that situation, therefore, I believe that it would be chivalrous, just and proper for thought to be given to an amendment of this nature.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, it appeared on the face of it that this was not about thresholds precisely, but a different issue. But the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has demonstrated the connection between the amendment moved by the noble Baroness and the issue of thresholds. Because I spoke last week, I certainly will not go over the arguments, but I want to comment on two points made by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in reply to that debate. He argued that if you have a threshold relating to turnout, that just encourages people to abstain. He repeated the argument several times, saying that people will think that all they need to do is to abstain and the referendum will be rejected, but my noble friend Lord Lawson pointed out that that is not necessarily how it would go. It might well go in the other direction. He pointed out that, for example, there would be people who were against change but who believed that the threshold will be met and therefore will have an added inducement to vote. That is one category of people who would have an inducement to vote. Secondly, there could be a group of people who are in favour but know that if they do not vote, they may lose the issue. So it can work in several ways.
	I made the point that in 1979, when we did have a threshold, the turnout then was 63 per cent-very high, even though there was a threshold-and that when the subsequent referendum was held without a threshold, the turnout was actually lower at 60 per cent. So in the particular case of the referendums in Scotland, when we did have thresholds, the turnout was higher. The noble Lord may say that that was an outcome threshold not a turnout threshold-and that is true-but I would argue that the effects of the threshold there are also ambiguous. If the noble Lord thinks that an outcome threshold that is something like the Cunningham amendment, with 40 per cent of the electorate required to vote yes, would encourage a high turnout, why do we not have that kind of threshold rather than a turnout threshold? The argument that a threshold encourages abstention is not very persuasive.
	The second point made by the noble Lord in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was that the Labour Government had been elected by only 21.6 per cent in 2005. If that did for them and the noble and learned Lord was happy with that, why was he not happy with 21.5 per cent in a referendum?
	A referendum is different from a general election. In a general election, Members of Parliament are up for election and may be up for re-election; a constitutional change is likely to be permanent and difficult to reverse. Secondly, even with 21.6 per cent in 2005, the turnout threshold put forward in the amendments would have been met anyway. There is obviously a difference between 21.6 per cent when at least three parties, and possibly four or five, are standing, and 21.6 per cent in relation to a yes/no proposition. Neither of the arguments the noble Lord puts forward against thresholds is persuasive.
	I do not know whether or not we will have to vote on this but, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that we did not have thresholds in previous referenda, although we did have one in relation to the Scottish referendum, one cannot think of a country in Europe that does not have a qualified majority provision for changes in the constitution. I shall be interested in what my noble friend says in reply to these points.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, in tabling her amendment, my noble friend Lady Hayter has done two useful things. First, she has reminded us that in legislating, particularly on constitutional matters, we should be sensitive to sentiment in the different nations of the United Kingdom. We needed to be sensitive to that sentiment 10 years ago, which is why we brought in devolution; and, in the context of devolution, and after 10 years' experience of it, it is all the more important that we should be so. However, the legislation proposed by the Government fails to be sensitive in that important regard. Under their model, a majority in the United Kingdom as a whole would trump a no vote within one of its constituent countries. In that way we risk alienating national opinion and national sentiment in whatever part of the country it was-it might be Wales or Scotland-that found its wishes thus crudely overruled.
	The second important thing that my noble friend's amendment does is to underline that whatever the result of the referendum and however the procedures might be amended in this legislation, if we then went on to have a referendum under whatever set of rules, the result is liable to be divisive. It would be divisive in the case of a particular country of the United Kingdom having its wishes on the electoral system overruled; and, equally, under my noble friend's amendment, it would be divisive because what she proposes would mean that where there was a no vote in any individual part of the United Kingdom, that would trump the yes vote across the wider United Kingdom and invalidate yes votes in other parts of the United Kingdom. That cannot be a happy outcome either.
	A third way in which it would be possible to go, although it is not proposed in the amendment, is for each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom to determine its own electoral system. In those parts of the kingdom that voted for AV, general elections would in future be conducted on the basis of AV; in those parts which preferred first past the post, they would continue to elect their Members of Parliament on the basis of first past the post. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, smiles at the evident fatuity of such a scheme, yet I do not know whether he entirely rules out the possibility of two classes of Member coming to this House of Parliament, some elected, some appointed, because he very wisely does not show his hand and delays doing so for as long as he can.
	The only circumstance in which a referendum on the voting system would not be divisive and set parts of the United Kingdom at odds with each other would be the eventuality of every part of the United Kingdom voting the same way, either for AV or first past the post. It is reasonable to think that that is rather an unlikely outcome.

Lord Wills: I am very interested in the case that my noble friend is making, but is he not worried that his third-way proposal might undermine the integrity of the Parliament of the United Kingdom?

Lord Howarth of Newport: I am worried precisely about that. That is why I set it up as an Aunt Sally, because it would be an alternative. It would have at least the virtue of being respectful of political sentiment, public opinion and the way people had voted in the individual parts of the United Kingdom. But it would be an absurd arrangement for us to alight upon.

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: My noble friend makes a serious and important point, but he, like me, will be aware that in the second part of this legislation we will be considering a system of parliamentary inquiries that will mean that, in different parts of the country, the setting of parliamentary constituencies will be different. Parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish Parliament will still have access to the inquiry system, whereas parliamentary constituencies for Westminster, if the legislation is carried, will not. Random mixtures of parliamentary rules for election to the other place are therefore not inconceivable.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My noble friend is absolutely right. This legislation is fraught with potential to divide and disintegrate the United Kingdom. I am conscious of that particularly as someone who had the honour of representing a Welsh constituency, because the proposals in Part 2 as they would affect Wales are particularly traumatic.

Lord Tebbit: While the noble Lord is going through his catalogue of anomalies, I am sure that he will not have forgotten that there have been occasions when the voters of Wales and of Scotland have imposed a Labour Government on England, which has voted Conservative. I am not sure whether he is agitated about that, wants to change it or just regards it as another of the glorious anomalies of our constitution.

Lord Howarth of Newport: I am a believer in the United Kingdom and I think that the noble Lord is also. I am sure that he will be generous enough to acknowledge that the results of elections in which that has occurred have been beneficent for the country as a whole.
	The amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter is an ingenious way to introduce another version of a threshold, which is that there would have to be a majority in each constituent part of the United Kingdom. I would like there to be a threshold, but I do not think that this is the right way to introduce it.

Lord McAvoy: I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter for moving the amendment, because it raises as a serious issue-I hope that it is treated by the House accordingly-the cohesiveness of the United Kingdom. Speaking as a former Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency, I would not claim any great authority but I was representative the area that I came from and embody in this place a particular opinion about Scotland's place in the United Kingdom, which we value a lot. To move to a semi-federal system where one nation imposed its will on another on a constitutional matter would raise issues and give manna from heaven to the nationalists and separatists who would divide up the United Kingdom.
	Naturally, there have been a lot of contributions about referenda and thresholds. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, mentioned the 1975 referendum and how he voted one way and then changed his mind some years later. He voted yes in 1975, he tells us, and says that he has changed his mind since. I voted no in 1975 and I am still not yet totally convinced that I was wrong, so there is a twist in that as well.
	This is about safeguarding and about cohesiveness. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, has left the Chamber because I think that we witnessed a vindictive, vicious attack by the noble Lord on his own Government Front Bench when he said that any parties that supported first past the post were dinosaurs. To my comrades on the Government Front Bench, the first past the post supporters say "Welcome aboard". The charge from the Liberal Benches that those of us who support first past the post are dinosaurs is becoming a bit boring.
	As for charges of filibustering, I will spend my statutory one minute on the Liberals and no more. We get these continual charges of filibustering-that all we are doing is following a master plan to delay the Bill and kill it. I am in two minds about changing the date of the referendum. I am in two or three minds, because one part of me thinks that if the referendum were to be held on 5 May, it would be thrashed. So there is some temptation there, but I keep coming up against what I believe is a constitutional outrage, which is to try to impose that referendum on the same day as elections in the devolved countries.
	I wish the Liberals would stop talking about filibustering; this is a party that wants PR. It dismissed AV in contemptuous tones before the election-now, all of a sudden, it is the holy grail. I wish that the Liberals would be politically honest and admit that they do not have much time for AV; they regard it as delivering a battering ram against the system of elections in this country and believe that it will be a magnificent stepping stone to the Valhalla of proportional representation. They are living in cloud-cuckoo-land and should stop wasting people's time.
	I believe that the amendment is worth supporting because it emphasises that we should be careful. We have something precious here in the United Kingdom-I believe that strongly-and we should be very careful about tipping the dish out, in the memorable phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. We should handle this carefully so that we can keep all the constituent parts of this United Kingdom. Any major constitutional change, which everybody says this is, should be handled very carefully. Balance, cohesiveness and the safeguarding of this special thing we have, called the United Kingdom, should be at the forefront of people's minds.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am not able to support my noble friend Lady Hayter's amendment simply because my approach throughout, as on other constitutional issues, is that the House of Commons is the House of Commons, it consists of single-Member constituencies and every Member of Parliament elected to sit in the House of Commons is there with the same rights and the same duties and with the same authority which derives from their election on the basis of first past the post. To the extent that the amendment detracts from that, it is not one that I can support. However, my noble friend has done the House a very good service in that she has reminded the Government, who do not seem to be in the mood to listen, that time and again, in responding to amendments, the Government have walked up one of two blind alleys.
	One blind alley is their absolute commitment to a referendum next May, which is presenting them with difficulty after difficulty; not silly difficulties, not trivial difficulties, but very substantial difficulties indeed. If they decided now not to reverse the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker that was carried, they would save themselves an awful lot of problems. It is not my job to be a consultant to the Government and should they think of asking me I am afraid the answer would be no, but they made a huge mistake by putting themselves in that time lock.
	The second blind alley is best illustrated by my noble friend's amendment. The Government are committed to this being a legislative referendum, not an indicative referendum. If this were an indicative referendum where the results were sensibly considered and analysed by Parliament and the Government after the figures had come in, there would be absolutely no need for my noble friend's amendment even to be considered. Precisely those types of arguments would come up in the post-referendum debate that should be held about the significance of the public's decision. Clearly, it would be a matter of concern to almost anyone if strong votes against changing the voting system from the electors of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were trumped by a strong vote in favour from the electorate in England. Whatever were the numbers when you added them all up, I should have thought that that would be a matter of real concern and something that any prudent Government would want to take into account in deciding what to do next.
	Am I the only one who so dislikes Clause 8(1)? That this is not an indicative referendum is encapsulated in this one line:
	"The Minister must make an order bringing into force".
	Why bother the Minister? Why not press a button? There is no decision to make. The Minister presumably just stamps whatever referendum result comes for him or her to consider. He should not draw much of a salary for that part of his activities when he is told by an Act of Parliament what he must decide to do. I appreciate why my noble friend has tabled the amendment, but it is not one that I can support.
	I say to those of us who were here sleepless the other night that it is not my intention to press my Amendment 44B on a 50 per cent threshold, but as thresholds have been mentioned I want to make one point very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who has been assiduous in attendance here is not with us today, but he made a point that was worthy of consideration in opposing a 50 per cent threshold. He simply asked the House whether it would not be very unjust if, with a turnout threshold, 49 per cent of the electorate voted in favour of a constitutional change. That would mean that 98 per cent of those who voted were in favour of constitutional change. I wish a bookie would let me have a bet on that not happening. The noble Lord was proposing that 49 per cent might vote yes, and if no one voted no-or 0.5 per cent voted no-that would not carry.
	Of course the answer to that has already been given in an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the Leader of the House. If we had an outcome threshold and the outcome was 25 per cent, surely even the most fervent supporter of changing the electoral system could not object to such a threshold. All we would be asking is for one in four of the public to be in favour of change. That would also deal with the point about abstentions. Deliberate abstentions would not matter provided that the 25 per cent of the electorate who we keep being told are enthusiastic for change turned up and voted. The decision would carry.
	Obviously we will need to come back to the threshold argument on Report, but I would be very happy with that. That might be a first for me, but I am a moderniser. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I could have a discussion about whether the sensible thing to do would be to table an amendment for an outcome threshold of 25 per cent. That would solve his sleepless nights worrying about what would happen if there were 49 per cent of the electorate voting for a change in the voting system which could not carry because of a turnout threshold. We would both be happy and my aim in life is to make people happy.

Lord Rooker: There is a snag there. One of the reasons why I did not move Amendment 43A is that there is a legal contractual arrangement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats not to do that. Even before they introduced the Bill, they had a contractual arrangement that they would not consider that kind of threshold. So we are stuffed before we start. If that is not the case, we will receive advice on it, but, as far as I know, the so-called coalition agreement rules that out.

Lord Grocott: If my noble friend is right-and he has been right on far more things over the years than he has been wrong-we really are wasting our time on this Committee stage. It has felt like that from this side of the Chamber throughout. It is unlike pretty well any other Committee stage I can think of, when the normal response from a Minister to anything other than a completely ludicrous amendment would be to say, "Well, we don't really like this amendment much, but there is something in it worth considering, so I am quite happy to discuss it".

Lord Campbell-Savours: Is not one advantage of the threshold to which my noble friend Lord Rooker refers the fact that you could then permit a very low turnout? You do not need a high turnout if you set an approval turnout, as my noble friend's amendment would have provided for. I cannot understand why the Government agreed this between the two parties. It would have been far easier to secure a low turnout with a 20 per cent approval threshold, for example, which would have pleased us all. Why did they not agree that?

Lord Grocott: There are fruitful lines of discussion here for Report stage, and if they can lead to unanimity across the Chamber-which is what I sense we are moving towards-let us look forward to that day.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I struggled through the snow from Scotland on the encouragement -indeed, almost the insistence-of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He is not here now, in fact, but he would not have managed to sit through much of this Committee without my presence, so I thought I had better be here. I thought I would just say a few words now, having made it. However, I hesitated to stand because so many Members opposite, particularly on the Conservative Benches, must have things to say on this. I shall sit down now if they want to get up, because I am sure that they are not the greatest enthusiasts for the system of voting that we are considering in this Bill and discussing, to some extent, in this amendment.
	I am not sure which is the best description of the Bill. I think it was my noble friend Lord Rooker who described it as a Faustian pact. I thought at the time that he said that it was a Foulkesian pact, and I was going to deny that I had anything to do with it.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: It was me.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Oh, it was my noble friend from Swansea who called it a Faustian pact. I do not know whether that is the best description of it, although it is certainly a true description. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has a better description of it as a dog's breakfast. The more one looks at the Bill and the more anomalies one finds in it, the more one thinks that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has the right description. It is a dog's breakfast-and it is a very dangerous dog's breakfast. I would not like to feed it to my dog. There are a lot of unexpected consequences to this Bill. The law of unexpected consequences is bad enough with a small Bill, but with this Bill of 301 pages there will be many unexpected consequences.
	I have been listening to the debate on this important amendment, which was proposed by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. That is a lovely part of London, incidentally. When I was at school in London I used to wander around Kentish Town from time to time. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, made a very important point. The nature of the union has changed dramatically over the past 12 years. We certainly need to take account of it. Most of the referenda we were talking about related to devolution or preceded the changes that have taken place. We are now talking about a very important thing. I very seldom disagree with my noble friend Lord Grocott, but I ask him and others to consider the sensitivity of the particular parts of the union-of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Let us imagine that this referendum takes place. There could be a low turnout or there might be a bigger turnout if there is voting on other things and if it is on the same day. I hope fervently, like so many noble Lords, that it is not on the same day, but if it does take place on the same day, there might be a differential turnout-perhaps a substantially differential turnout. Imagine the situation where Scotland voted to keep first past the post, Wales voted to keep first past the post, Northern Ireland voted to keep first past the post, but AV-I was going to say this bastard of a system, but I must not say that-this awful system that we have been discussing at length, was imposed on the whole of the United Kingdom by a vote in England that would-

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the West Country the word "bastard" is a term of endearment?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: In the West Country, that may be rightly so, but where I come from the term is not thought of in quite that manner. I am very glad to see the noble Lord here. Having served with him in the House of Commons, I have great respect for him, especially as so many of the reforms in the House of Commons came from him. However, my recollection is that the reforms that he introduced in the House of Commons were brought in after careful thought, after much discussion and after cross-party deliberation-unlike those in the Bill. No doubt whoever is replying to the debate on the amendment will bear that point in mind.
	My noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town has raised a very important point. Incidentally, I thought that it was with great ingenuity that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, brought in the whole question of thresholds, which we have previously debated. I hope that at some point-I do not know whether that will be now or later this evening or on Report-we will be permitted to vote on the matter in Amendment 44A, because it is important that we should consider the question of thresholds. However, on the more important issue today concerning the result in the four countries that comprise the United Kingdom, I think that my noble friend Lady Hayter has done this House a great service in moving Amendment 44.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lords, Lord St John, Lord Tebbit and Lord Roberts to this debate, which has, as ever, been a riveting discussion. I note two points in particular: first, that the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord McAvoy, appeared to agree on practically everything, excepting a marginal disagreement on the vote on joining the European Union; and, secondly, that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with a straight face described himself as a moderniser.
	In Amendment 44, my noble friend Lady Hayter proposes that, in order for the referendum vote to effect a change in the voting system, there must be a yes vote in all four countries of the United Kingdom. As such, this is another debate on whether special barriers should need to be overcome before the voting system can be changed. In looking at the Bill, one of the roles of the House of Lords must be to ensure the correct constitutional proprieties. Whether one looks at the proposals in the Bill that was introduced before the general election or the proposals in this Bill, there is a constitutional piece of trickiness going on. Neither House of Parliament has said that it wants AV, so the proposal has not been endorsed by Parliament, in contradistinction to the proposal on membership of the European Union, which was endorsed by Parliament, and the devolution changes, which were endorsed by Parliament in 1999.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Does my noble friend also accept that no party wants AV? Given that the Conservative Party does not want AV, the AV proposal of the then Labour Government was rejected in the general election and the Liberal party wants another form of representation, no party is in favour of AV either.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That appears to be the position. The proposal does not have the support of Parliament and, as my noble friend Lord Anderson has pointed out, does not have the support of any individual party.
	Suppose that, in a referendum with no threshold where implementation was compulsory, the turnout was 40 per cent. In that case, a result could be reached in which only 20 per cent of the country had voted in favour of AV. When we debated-last Wednesday, I think-my noble friend Lady Hayter's Amendment 43, we heard how that proposal for a 25 per cent threshold could have produced a situation in which the change was effected if only 13 per cent of the population voted in favour of the proposition. Most countries in the world-sensibly, in my view-make it harder to change the constitution than to make other sorts of legislative change. The Government's extraordinary proposal could lead to a change following a tiny proportion voting yes. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with characteristic robustness and honesty, took pleasure in the fact that, if 13 per cent voted in favour of the change in the voting system, the result could indeed be that the voting system should change. The only occasion when any sort of threshold has been required for a referendum that would have changed our constitution was on the only previous occasion on which implementation of the referendum decision was compulsory rather than indicative. I was not in the House of Commons in 1978 or 1979 but many who are here were, and all of them who have spoken have said that the Member for Islington South, Mr George Cunningham, persuaded people on a free vote that, when changing the constitution under such a proposal-which people thought might lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom-there has to be legitimacy. On the face of it, the effect of the Government's proposal is a manoeuvre that could lead to a change in our constitution.
	However, there is no point in debating whether Mr Nick Clegg is correct in saying that the proposal is the most important change since 1832. I do not think that anyone doubts that the proposal is an important change, but if the public think that it is the wrong change, they will not like it and their distrust of Parliament will increase. Our role in the Lords is to make the Commons think again, particularly in relation to the constitution, if we think that they have got it wrong. Our debate on the issue last Wednesday-I single out in particular the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont-demonstrated the constitutional trickiness of the proposal. The fact that we could end up with Parliament not approving-and, indeed, probably being against-the proposed system but a tiny amount of the population being persuaded to vote for it shows that something has gone wrong in the way that we are dealing with the issue.
	The proposal of my noble friend Lady Hayter is that, for the referendum to have effect, every country in the United Kingdom must vote yes. I tend towards the view that that is not the right answer because, in my view, we should do everything to promote coherence in the United Kingdom. That means that, where we are voting on a national voting system, implementation of any referendum should be guided by what the national vote is. Therefore, I would reject that approach. However, I am extremely keen that whoever replies from the Front Bench on behalf of the coalition should deal with the points that I have made. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, we debated the issue late at night last Wednesday and this is a point of real importance in relation to the constitution.
	Finally, I want to pick up on what my noble friend Lord Rooker said about there being a legal and binding agreement between the members of the coalition not to agree to any outcome threshold. Of course, he is wrong about there being a legal agreement, because we are talking about politics here. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has returned for the end of the debate. It may be that, having heard the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness-whichever of them is answering the debate-will think that there are things more important than simply the terms of an agreement that was reached over a few days. I have in mind in particular a change to our constitution, which people of this country respect.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have certainly had a longer debate than I had imagined when I first saw this amendment, but it has been useful and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having introduced it. When I first saw it, I thought it was possibly imaginative, possibly a little bizarre. I am not sure that I came to a conclusion as to which it was during the course of the debate but I became convinced it was flawed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, agreed with me on that, as did other notable noble Lords from the other side, including the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Grocott, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, as well. I therefore very much hope that, when it comes to deciding what to do with it, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
	I was not planning on being drawn into a larger debate on thresholds. We discussed it well the other night. It is, however, worth making one or two points. The best suggestion to come out of this debate was that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and my noble friend Lord Tyler should get together over the Christmas period and discuss whether there could be some areas of agreement between them. If I may speak for my noble friend Lord Tyler in his absence, I am sure he will wish to take up the noble Lord's invitation, and I hope to hear the good results from that discussion.
	I hope the House, including my noble friend Lord Lamont and others, do not think that I do not understand why imposing a threshold might appear initially attractive. On the surface, it may seem to offer an extra layer of reassurance, particularly if the change that is being put to the vote is one that you personally do not favour. However, it is the Government's firm view that if people want change-if a simple majority of those who turn out to vote want change-we should not deny them this by imposing artificial barriers. We have not specified a voter turnout threshold because we want to respect the will of the people who do vote in the referendum without conditions or qualifications.

Lord Howarth of Newport: Since we debated thresholds last Wednesday, I have had the opportunity to read the Government's Localism Bill, which they have just published. I was interested to see there evidence that might indicate the beginning of some flexibility in the Government's view on thresholds in referendums. Perhaps it is just a case of double standards, I do not know. Clause 41 of the Localism Bill is entitled "The required percentage". It requires that, for a petition for a local referendum to be valid, no less than 5 per cent of registered electors must vote for it. The noble Lord would be entitled to say that a petition is quite a different thing from a referendum, but then we go on to Clause 51, "Voting in and conduct of local referendums". Here we find that:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the conduct of local referendums".
	The clause goes on to say in subsection (5):
	"Regulations under this section may apply or incorporate, with or without modifications or exceptions, any provision of any enactment (whenever passed or made) relating to elections or referendums".
	Do I see in that the kernel of some rethinking on the part of the Government about the possibility of thresholds making sense in referendums? Of course, the Localism Bill deals only with local referendums. If the Government do not believe in thresholds, presumably they ought to be consistent. Will the noble Lord say categorically that, whatever powers the Secretary of State might use-the powers given to him in the Bill are almost universal-to alter the rules on referendums in the local context, the Government will never in any circumstances institute a threshold?

Lord Strathclyde: We will have plenty of time to discuss the Localism Bill when it arrives here. It has yet even to be debated in the House of Commons; it has just been published. However, I can confirm that we have no intention of introducing thresholds. That reminds me of a question asked by the noble Baroness about whether we had any plans vis-à-vis trade unions. Again, I confirm that we have no plans to introduce thresholds for trade union ballots. However, so many noble Lords on the other side have spoken in favour of thresholds that if they were to make a proposal to me about thresholds for trade union ballots, I would very much like to read it.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: On consistency, I was one of those in the other place who voted for the Cunningham amendment in 1978. In the Lobby with me and certain dissident Labour Members was almost 100 per cent of the Conservative Party at that time. What has changed since 1978, when the Conservative Party was clearly in favour of a threshold?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I hinted, I am at a disadvantage compared with many noble Lords because I was not in the House in 1978. In 1978 there was the prospect of the collapse of the Labour Government, which is exactly what happened. On 1 March 1979 the threshold was not reached, and the nationalists changed their minds and did not support Jim Callaghan in his vote of no confidence. It was rather an admirable tactic.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Essentially, the Minister is saying that it was no more than opportunistic. It was a matter of tactics at the time and there was no point of principle.

Lord Strathclyde: I have no idea whether there was a great point of principle at stake in 1978. I am simply explaining its effect. The Labour Government might well have continued for another six months in 1979 if they had not lost that vote of no confidence. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Lawson is not here. He told the House some interesting anecdotes from 1978, but I am sure we will return to that on Report.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, is the position today not a mirror image of that? If the noble Lord is right, the position was taken in 1978 to avoid a Government falling; the position this time is to create a situation in which a Government can be formed. It seems that the same motive in effect applies.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that this is a matter of tactics by Labour Party Back-Benchers, many of us on this side of the House would agree that noble Lords opposite are operating tactically on this, particularly when we compare what they have been saying about thresholds in debates in this House with what has been said in another place. When the House of Commons was asked to vote, it voted by 549 to 31 against having a threshold. The Labour Party followed those on the government and Liberal Democrat Benches to vote against a threshold.

Lord Touhig: A moment ago the noble Lord talked of thresholds as being artificial barriers. What is AV if it is not a threshold?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are talking about a referendum on whether people wish to have AV. During the course of the campaigns people will no doubt make that point-as the noble Lord will and perhaps even as I will-but that is not what we are discussing today. We are discussing today whether there should be a referendum and whether it should be done by clean majority. I support the idea of a referendum; I am happy to trust the people on this. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, talked about this earlier. Was he not the architect of the CRaG Bill before the last election, which proposed an AV referendum with no thresholds anywhere across the United Kingdom-no voter thresholds, turnout thresholds, outcome thresholds or any kind of threshold you could possibly imagine. There has been a change of mind.

Lord Mawhinney: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He just said that we are talking today about a clean referendum with a clean majority at the end. Does it remain the Government's view that any size of majority, no matter how small, would be legitimate, given that this a constitutional measure?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it does. One vote would be enough under the terms of this legislation.

Lord Wills: Before the noble Lord moves from my comments on this, I refer him to tomorrow's Hansard so that he may see exactly what I said about thresholds. I also expressed very clearly my worry about the effect of the way in which the Government are proceeding on the state of the union. I would be very grateful if he could address those concerns, which have been raised not only by me but by very many noble Lords this afternoon.

Lord Strathclyde: I very much agree with what the noble Lord said about the union, and with other noble Lords from all sides of the House who made exactly the same point. That is why we would not want to encourage this amendment in any way at all.
	We will come back to thresholds on Report; this is an important debate to have. There was no threshold in 1975 in the only national referendum that we have held. The Opposition's ardour for thresholds did not apply in 1997 and 1998 in their four referendums in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. There has been no proposal from any major political party for a threshold in the referendum in Wales next March that would extend the powers of the National Assembly. Most tellingly, when AV was proposed in the Bill before Parliament, there was no threshold in that either.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think it is right that the only time there was a threshold was in the compulsory referendum in 1978, which meant that Parliament would have no opportunity to consider whether there was a very low turnout.

Lord Strathclyde: The noble and learned Lord makes a good point, but the referendum that we are dealing with today is very simple; it is yes and no on changing the electoral system. The referendum that the people of Scotland and Wales faced in 1978 was entirely different and raised much more fundamental issues of constitutional propriety and the setting up of different Parliaments and Assemblies in both those countries.

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not acknowledge, as the Deputy Prime Minister has done, that this is the greatest reforming measure since 1832? Since the 1970s it has become a convention, when major constitutional matters are being considered, that there be consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been neither consultation on, nor pre-legislative scrutiny of, this legislation.

Lord Strathclyde: I really do not agree. There has been much discussion on changing the electoral system for as long as I have been of voting age. It has been discussed many times in and outside Parliament. People are very well versed on this. As for this new convention that the noble Baroness has introduced, when the role of Lord Chancellor was scrapped, it was done on the back of an envelope-in a press release. There was no consultation or discussion whatever, even with the judiciary. It led to the resignation of the then Lord Chancellor, to be succeeded by the noble and learned Lord, so this is an entirely new convention. It may be very desirable, but it is new.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord is so right; and the consequence was that the House, unprecedentedly and contrary to convention, referred that Bill to a Select Committee instead of granting it a Second Reading. We spent 18 months considering it, and although I kicked and screamed at the beginning, I said at the very end that the 18 months had been really worth it to make it a much better Bill. Please learn from that experience.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad that if the noble and learned Lord ever finds himself in government again he will not make the same mistakes.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My noble friend has tried to merge the motives of people in voting for thresholds with the arguments for and against thresholds. He says that voting for the Cunningham amendment was motivated just by opportunism. He has, not I am sure with any malicious or impolite intention, also implied that those who have argued for a threshold in these debates have done so because they are against AV. However, will he not address some of the arguments on their own merits? For example, does not the fact that almost every European country has a qualified majority for constitutional change show that there is something in this argument?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that no impoliteness is intended in any shape or form. However, I largely stand by the fact that most of those who speak in favour of a threshold tend to be those who are most opposed to the policy of having a referendum or who are against AV, which is why they want a qualification.
	My noble friend asked an interesting question about what happens in other European countries. The answer is that different countries do different things. Let us take just one example. I think I am right in thinking that France requires a majority in Parliament for making constitutional change, but does not require a threshold when there is a national referendum. I am sure that we could trade statistics from around the world about different countries doing different things, but France is an example of it being done in that way.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has chosen the best possible example for his case. In France, changes in the electoral system have become a plaything of whichever Government are in power, partly because there are not the constitutional barriers to mucking about with voting that have always existed in this country.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that may well be an argument in a campaign either for or against AV. It is not an argument that can be used to decide whether there should be a referendum on that issue or whether there should be any limits or artificial barriers, as I call them, on this.
	I think that everyone now knows what the amendment would do. It would require a majority vote in favour in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than a simple majority. We cannot contemplate a system whereby 100 per cent of voters in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland vote in favour of a proposal, only for it to be rejected because only 49 per cent of voters in Wales agree with them. I know that that is an extreme example, but it could be the effect of the amendment and it none the less highlights the fundamentally undemocratic consequences of this proposal. That is why the coalition agreement commits us to providing for a simple-majority referendum on the alternative vote, without qualification.

Lord Wills: The noble Lord is being very generous in giving way. However, does he not accept that whatever the view about a threshold, a differential result in each of the constituent nations of the union could have profound implications for our United Kingdom-for the union? He must accept that. It is a logical assumption to make. If he accepts that, why does he reject the proposition? Is it not more reasonable for Parliament, the acme of our representative democracy, to assess those results, know what they are and then judge how to proceed? Is that not the most sensible way forward?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not agree with that; this is a United Kingdom vote on an electoral system for the United Kingdom Parliament. If the majority of those taking part in a referendum vote "yes", is it not right that Parliament accepts that result and carries on? That seems to be the fundamental position and it is why we resist the amendment, as we have resisted other amendments made here and in another place. We think that if we introduced these thresholds, they would have undesirable consequences, compromising public confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome. We want to respect, without conditions or qualifications, the will of the people who vote in the referendum, and I believe that a simple majority is the fairest way of doing so. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for all their interventions, which have given me an interesting history lesson-particularly for 1978. Earlier, the other Cunningham-my noble friend Lord Cunningham-was here, although I do not think that he is in his seat at the moment. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, played a different role in 1978, and each will have their memories of that referendum. We have also heard the history of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and me. He recalled that we met in 1970 but the date was actually 4 August 1970. We have heard stories of the misspent youth of my noble friend Lord Foulkes in Kentish Town, and even West Country lingo, which I shall not repeat in this House.
	The essence of the debate has clearly been far more important than those personal recollections. One of the interesting questions was put by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, who asked whether one vote was enough, to which the answer is clearly "yes". Perhaps that is why Members of your Lordships' House will have a vote in the referendum-because the Government may be dependent on every last vote. I always wondered why we suddenly got into that.
	It has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that neither House has come out in favour of AV. Indeed, as I think my noble friend Lord Howarth added, nor has any party has come out in favour of it. The Labour Party never even discussed it. I was chair of the Labour Party at that time and it was the party in Parliament that first decided to have a referendum. However, the party as such has not taken a view on it. That is quite correct; it does not have to do so. Individual members' views will be known but it will certainly not be a collective view.
	I think my noble friend Lord Lipsey suggested that I was a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of first past the post due to having tabled this amendment. However, that is not the case. I marginally favour first past the post over AV but I can live with AV. I am a passionate supporter of the constituency link but of course that matter will not be in front of us today. However, I do not think that the allegation is that I am doing this because I have a particular view on that. I do not think that this is a bizarre amendment, as the Leader of the House referred to it. Rather, as my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport said, we should be sensitive to the sentiments of each of the four countries, especially if, in the voting, one of them is out of line with the others. We should respect the results in each of the four countries for this outcome to have legitimacy. That does not mean that we necessarily stop the train; it means that we have time to pause and consider, and really all that the amendment asks is for the Government and Parliament to have time to pause and consider.
	This is not an amendment about thresholds. As most Members of the Committee will know, I tabled one such amendment last week. It was very modest, and in fact I was ticked off by some of my noble friends as it referred to only a 25 per cent threshold. However, that was last week and this amendment is different: it avoids the risk of an abstention counting as a "no" vote; it is about the result, not the turnout; and, as has been said, it bypasses any difficulties with the wording that the coalition may have. It is essentially, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, an insurance against the irreversible change that the referendum might make. We could, of course, have different systems. I do not agree that just because it is one House there must be one system. I worked for a long time in the European Parliament where we had completely different systems that brought Members to the European Parliament. We lived quite happily with that result.
	This amendment, therefore, is about having time to reconsider before the automaticity of the implementation happens. I hope that the Government are going to give some thought to this general view, whether it be a threshold on turnout, outcome, or, indeed, looking at these four results.
	Having failed, however, to win over even my own Front Bench I will, at this stage, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 44 withdrawn.
	House resumed.

European Council
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows.
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week's European Council. Britain had three objectives at this Council. First, to bring stability to the eurozone, which is in Britain's interests; secondly, to make sure that Britain is not liable for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect; and, thirdly, to build on the progress we made with the 2011 EU budget, with tougher settlements in the years to follow.
	Let me address each objective in turn-first, stability in the eurozone. No one can doubt this is in our interests. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, London is Europe's international financial centre, and no one can deny that the eurozone faces very real challenges at the moment. We see that in the Irish situation and with Spain and Portugal paying interest rate penalties in the financial markets. Britain's approach should not be simply to say, 'We told you monetary union would require fiscal union', and leave it at that. We want to help the eurozone to deal with the issues it faces.
	The fact that we have set out a path to deal with our deficit and seen our interest rates come down is helpful. Following the dinner at which leaders of all the EU countries had a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the eurozone, eurozone leaders issued a statement saying they,
	'stand ready to do whatever is required',
	to return the eurozone to stability. Part of that is a permanent mechanism for assisting eurozone countries that get into financial difficulty.
	Enabling eurozone countries to establish such a mechanism is in our interests, but how this mechanism is brought about is equally important. After the October Council I made it very clear to the House that any possible future treaty change would not affect the UK, and that I would not agree to it if it did. I also said clearly that no powers would be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.
	At this Council we agreed the establishment of a permanent mechanism with a very limited treaty change. This change does not affect the United Kingdom and it does not transfer any powers from Britain to the European Union.
	Secondly, on the issue of liability for any potential bailout of the eurozone in future, Britain is not in the euro, and we are not going to join the euro. That is why we should not have any liability for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect in 2013. With the current emergency arrangements, established under Article 122, we do. This was a decision taken by the previous Government. It is a decision we disagreed with at the time and we are stuck with it for the duration of the emergency mechanism, but I have been determined to ensure that, when the permanent mechanism starts, Britain's liability should end. That is exactly what we agreed.
	The Council conclusions state that this will be a,
	'stability mechanism for member states whose currency is the euro'.
	This means it is a mechanism established by eurozone countries for eurozone countries, and Britain will not be a part of it. Crucially, we have also ensured that the current emergency arrangements are closed off when the new mechanism comes into effect in 2013.
	Both the Council conclusions and the introduction to the actual decision to change the treaty itself-the actual document that will be presented to this Parliament for its assent-are clear that Article 122,
	'will no longer be needed for such purposes',
	and that,
	'Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes'.
	So both the Council conclusions and the decision that introduces the treaty change state in black and white the clear and unanimous agreement that from 2013 Britain will not be dragged into bailing out the eurozone. Before the Government agree to this treaty change, Parliament must first, of course, give its approval, and if this treaty change is agreed by all member states then its ratification in this country will be subject to the terms of our EU Bill and so will be subject to primary legislation.
	Thirdly, let me turn to the issue of the EU budget. Securing a tight budget for the future remains my highest priority for the EU. I believe it is a priority shared by the vast majority of the country. At the last Council, we managed to do something we have not done in previous years. We were faced with a situation where the Council had agreed a 2.91 per cent increase. This was not the UK's position. We had wanted a tougher settlement, but were outvoted, yet the Parliament went on and called for 6 per cent increase, but instead of just splitting the difference between what the Council asked for and what the Parliament called for-which is what happened last year-Britain led an alliance of member states to decisively reject the European Parliament's request. We insisted on no more than the 2.91 per cent increase the Council had previously agreed. Many predicted this would be impossible and that Britain would be defeated, but this will save the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds. We also agreed a new principle that from now on the EU budget must be in line with what we are doing in our countries.
	We did this by taking the initiative and galvanising others to join us, and we sent a clear message that when we are making cuts at home, with tough decisions on pensions, welfare and pay, it is simply not acceptable to go on spending more and more and more through the European Union. At this Council, I wanted to keep up the momentum on the EU budget by forging an alliance with like-minded partners and starting to work towards securing a tougher settlement for future budgets. At the weekend, Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and I, together with the Prime Ministers of Finland and the Netherlands, sent a letter to the President of the European Commission. This letter sets out our goals for the budgets for 2012 and 2013 and the longer-term financial perspective covering the rest of this decade. It states clearly our collective view that,
	'the action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth',
	in European spending should be "stepped up" in 2012 and 2013, and we call for a real-terms freeze in the period from 2014 to 2020. I want to achieve a decade of spending restraint in Europe, and the three biggest powers in Europe, the three biggest net contributors to the budget, have committed to that. This is an important step forward.
	There are two problems that Europe must urgently address. First, the eurozone is not working properly. It needs major reform, and it is in our interests not to stand in the way of that. Indeed, as I have argued, we should be actively helping the eurozone to deal with its issues. Secondly, Europe as a whole needs to be much more competitive. Collectively we must press ahead with measures which will help European countries pay their way in a world where economic competition internationally is becoming ever fiercer. We must expand the single market in areas such as services, press forward on free trade and, crucially, avoid burdening businesses with costly red tape. We must promote stability, jobs and growth. That is the agenda this Government are pursuing in Europe, and I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. There are three issues that I would like to ask him about. The first is the agreement on the European budget, the second is treaty change, and the third is the wider but most fundamental question of European growth.
	I turn first to the European budget. I welcome the call for restraint in the years ahead. On the budget for this year, the Prime Minister applauded the outcome because, as he said, it avoided the ultimate sin of European negotiations; that of simply splitting the difference between positions. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Prime Minister originally wanted a freeze on the budget while the European Parliament wanted a 5.9 per cent increase, and the Prime Minister was still arguing for that days before the last European Council in October. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can tell the House what the figure is that splits the difference between 0 per cent and 5.9 per cent. By my reckoning, it is somewhere around 2.9 per cent, which is the outcome we actually ended up with. So, after the Government's rhetoric, where have we ended up? We have ended up by splitting the difference.
	We welcome the Prime Minister's support for the treaty change agreed at the Council. It is right that the eurozone replaces its ad hoc agreements with a more permanent mechanism. But why does the Prime Minister have to go through such hoops to justify accepting this fairly minor change? He is, after all, showing a sensible piece of what one might call europragmatism. Of course, the problem for the Government is that before the election, the Prime Minister claimed not to be a europragmatist but the great eurosceptic, which is more rhetoric. He promised that if there was any chance for a reopening of the treaty and a referendum on Lisbon, he personally would make it happen. The Foreign Secretary has admitted that the treaty offers a pretext for a referendum, but that it would be absurd to use it to try to derail the whole of Lisbon. Indeed, the Prime Minister also used to say that he would take the first opportunity he needed to repatriate powers over employment and social legislation to Britain, but again, he has not. It would be helpful to the House, and probably more helpful for the noble Lord's own Back-Benchers, to explain why these pre-election commitments have been abandoned.
	I turn to the third and most important issue, that of the European economy. The agreement on a permanent crisis mechanism for the eurozone after 2013 does not address the challenges that Europe's economy faces at the moment. Does the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, agree that eurozone members themselves should do more to promote stability in the eurozone before 2013, and does he also agree that we need European action to promote growth for there to be any chance of serious export growth for the UK? The Prime Minister's plans, with VAT set to rise and spending cuts kicking in, rely on an extra £100 billion of exports over five years, and over 50 per cent of our exports are made to Europe. But the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be aware that European Commission forecasts show slowing growth within the EU next year. Does he accept that the Government need to do more to work with colleagues in Europe to improve the prospects for growth?
	First, by arguing that all countries engaging in fiscal consolidation, including Germany and the UK, should do so at a pace that supports economic growth both domestically and across Europe as a whole. Secondly, he should ensure that those countries facing problems, including Ireland, are not locked into repeated rounds of austerity with higher taxes and lower spending, hitting the growth those countries need to pay down their debts and recover. Thirdly, he should make sure that Europe's voice in the G20 argues for a growth-oriented strategy. Indeed, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that given the nature of this Statement, many people will wonder whether the Government see any connection between their own optimistic forecasts for exports and the summit that the Prime Minister attended at the weekend.
	The Government's approach regarding Europe reflects their wider domestic approach. They think that you can reduce an economic policy to a pure deficit reduction policy with no focus on growth and jobs. In 2011, the Government need to start engaging in a growth agenda for Europe and Britain that can help us here at home.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for responding to the Statement and for the way in which he did so. He made three substantial points and asked questions. I shall try to answer them but, if I am unable to do so, I shall of course right to him in the normal way.
	This was an important Council meeting because the issues facing the EU were varied and substantially economic. Some issues were related to the eurozone and the Council took steps to deal with them; and some were related to the budget, which we believed had grown out of control in the past few years.
	First, the noble Lord made the point-whether or not he was agreeing with me was hard to tell-that the budget was not the victory it looked because the European Parliament had wanted an increase of 5.9 per cent, or whatever it was. The point is that after the last Council the European Parliament voted for-indeed, demanded-6 per cent. The normal way would have been to split the difference between 3 per cent and 6 per cent and ended up at 4.5 per cent. However, with other countries, we stood firm at 2.9 per cent and were right to do so. In a letter that we have agreed with the major net contributors to the EU, we have set a new standard by which future budgets will be judged. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that that is good news.
	Secondly, the noble Lord agreed that there is a requirement for a new permanent mechanism-I think that is absolutely right-but he went on to ask why we should go through the hoops. The hoops, incidentally, are to allow Parliament to have a say, not only in the arrangements that we already have in the House under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty but in new primary legislation. That is not going through the hoops but putting the decision where it should lie-in Parliament-and that is why we are doing it. There is no question of a referendum because there is no question of a transfer of power from the British Parliament to the European Union.
	On the question of growth, the noble Lord is again right to say that there is a problem; there is a crisis in the eurozone and with the euro. We want the EU to succeed-it is in our vital British interests that it should do so-including countries such as Ireland and others which have found themselves in trouble. We believe that we are on the brink of a substantial, export-led growth but Europe, too, needs a credible growth agenda. As the noble Lord pointed out, the EU's potential growth is forecast to be just 1.7 per cent in 2014.
	We believe that each member state needs to carry out its own reforms-that is why the UK Government have launched their own growth review-but there is a strong case for similar determination at the EU level, where Europe 2020 needs to provide a more focused drive towards making progress in areas where there is significant EU value added and can genuinely promote growth. For example, we should focus throughout Europe on a more efficient and competitive single market, especially on increasing productivity and trade in the services sector; we need a more ambitious and open approach to global trade to allow Europe to benefit from growth elsewhere, particularly in Asia; we need a framework for innovation that enables technological change; and we need smarter regulations that will leave enterprise freer to drive the growth that we need.
	No one underestimates the challenges that face this country and the rest of Europe. However, with some of our enlightened European partners, we believe that with this kind of agenda for growth we can get ourselves out of trouble.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and, through him, to congratulate the Prime Minister on his perseverance and clarity in his clearly difficult negotiations in Brussels. One of the successes of the Statement is that it is forward-looking. We all know of the difficult issues that are still with us, two or three years after the financial crisis, in the peripheral countries of the eurozone. It was surprising to hear so much time devoted by the Official Opposition to the past and what the Government might or might not have promised in previous years. Media reports suggest that some concessions were made in terms of the financial perspectives moving forward to the period 2014 to 2020-indeed, the Germans secured their Lisbon treaty revision to establish the financial stability facility-but it was disturbing to hear that there was agreement with the French that the common agricultural policy would remain untouched. In other words, our desire to achieve greater efficiencies will not now bear fruit. Will my noble friend reassure us that we will continue with our commitments to reform the common agricultural policy? I wonder also whether he could reassure us that the newer eurozone countries, which have done very well by the structural funds and would naturally be loath to see them cut back, will nevertheless have conversations with us to attain that end, because we cannot all have cake every day.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right: we cannot have cake every day. Throughout Europe, different countries in different ways are learning the lesson of increasing productivity and trying to do more for less. The Prime Minister had one thing on his mind, and was not alone in so doing. He made it clear that, with leaders having to look at cuts in all sorts of very sensitive areas in their home countries, as we have had to do in ours, it was quite wrong to see net contributions to the EU continue to rise exponentially and that we needed to come forward with a very sensible plan over the next few years.
	My noble friend Lady Falkner asked about our commitment to reform the CAP. This has been a long-standing commitment, and we cling very firmly to our view that the CAP needs to be reformed. Discussions on it will continue, likewise on the structural funds.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study last week's financial stability report from the Bank of England, which demonstrated the interconnectedness of the obligations of British banks and those of banks on the continent and suggested to the reader that, should there be any kind of sovereign debt default in a member state in the eurozone, Britain and British banks would be heavily involved in any debt restructuring that was necessary? In this case, is it not time that, instead of trying to pretend to their anti-European and Eurosceptic Back-Benchers that Britain can stand aside from the problems of the eurozone, the Government recognised that we are in these problems up to our neck, that if we want a credible growth strategy for Britain we must also have a credible growth strategy for the eurozone, and that we should be ready as the United Kingdom in our national interest to play a full part in that?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have not had time to study the stability report from the Bank of England to which the noble Lord referred, but I understand exactly what he was saying. With the greatest respect to him, I think that his question was misconceived. There is no fear from us that we are trying to appease anti-European or sceptical Back-Benchers. These are bogeymen that obviously exist in the noble Lord's nightmares. We have no such nightmares and no such concerns. If any such concerns exist, they are partly dealt with by explaining that there will be a process in the British Parliament for agreeing the changes that we have made. Of course, as I laid out in the Statement and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have a clear strategy for growth in the United Kingdom and believe that there should be a clear strategy for growth in the rest of Europe.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I perked up slightly at the Minister's first answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he said that the treaty change would be settled in this Parliament, as it should be. I was then a bit saddened to hear that it is only treaty changes that do not affect us that get settled in Parliament and ones that do affect us get settled somewhere else. This reflects a very odd view about the primacy of Parliament.
	On the budget, on the financial perspectives, I strongly welcome the fact that the Government are taking a tough line in the initial phases of that negotiation. I think that that is absolutely necessary, but they seem to have nailed their colours to something that used to be known in the jargon as "zero real growth" for a period of 10 years. That is a very long time. I do not imagine that the Government will be proposing zero real growth in public expenditure in this country for 10 years and, if they do, their prospects of re-election in 2015 may be a bit damaged. So some care needs to be taken about what is a very long period ahead, although I very much agree that taking a tough line at the beginning is good.
	Finally, will the noble Lord confirm that the fact that Montenegro was accepted as a candidate country shows that the European Union is continuing with future enlargement in the Balkans and elsewhere?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I certainly agree with what the noble Lord said at the end about Montenegro, which we hope, over time, will be able to play a full part in the European Union. I liked the noble Lord's characterisation, at the start of his words, about treaty modifications. Of course, what he did not go on to say, when speaking about parliamentary sovereignty, or the primacy of Parliament, is that if there is a substantial transfer of power, we will take it to a referendum of the people of this country. We may disagree about that, but I think that it is a perfectly logical position for us to have.
	The substance of the noble Lord's point was about zero real growth for 10 years. We have proposed that we should reduce growth up until 2014 and that between 2014 and 2020 there should be no growth, or zero real growth, as the noble Lord pointed out. We cling strongly to this view in part because of the difficulties faced by individual member states within the European Union. There is also a sense that over the last few years some of the spending within the EU has not been as carefully controlled as it might have been. This is an opportunity for the EU to review its own budgeting process and I very much hope that it will be supported by other member states in due course.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, since it must now be clear, even to our political class, that the euro is designed for failure, with its single interest and exchange rates and its absence of a federal budget, except in extreme illegality, will the noble Lord give a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we will not voluntarily bail out Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy and Belgium in the same way that we have volunteered to bail out Ireland?
	Secondly, have the Government worked out how much it would cost to return Ireland to its national currency? Would that not be the obvious and very cheap thing to do, followed in short order by Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy? Have they any idea what that would cost compared with the billions that we are throwing down the eurodrain?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not for us to work out the cost of Ireland or any other country leaving the EU.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Because it would save us pouring all these billions down the drain.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we certainly played a part in the Irish bailout because we perceived it to be in our national interest, whether Ireland was in the eurozone or otherwise, for reasons that the noble Lord knows well.
	The noble Lord asked another question: what happens if another country asks for similar support? He went on to list a few of them. There have been no requests for financial assistance from other member states. It is therefore inappropriate for me from this Dispatch Box to speculate on what may or may not happen in other member states given that no request for assistance has been made. The European financial stability mechanism and the European financial stability facility are fully operational. Any request for assistance from a member state would be considered on its own merits.
	The noble Lord started by saying that the eurozone was designed for disaster. It is not easy for those who were not in favour of us joining the euro in the first place to make a coherent argument for the euro, but it is in existence. It is in our political and economic interests in Britain for the euro to succeed and that is why we continue to support it.

Lord Maples: My Lords, could my noble friend help me with my memory of the Maastricht treaty, which set up the euro? I seem to remember that two of the conditions were that: first, no Government should run a budget deficit of more than 3 per cent of GDP; and, secondly, that there should be no bailouts? Is not the reason that the European Union-or the eurozone at least-is now having to breach the no-bailout clause is because Governments were allowed to breach the deficit clause? Will that change not create a huge moral hazard? They were getting away with breaking the deficit clause but they did not know that they were going to get bailed out. Now that they know they are going to get bailed out, that is creating a moral hazard that surely will encourage bad behaviour in the future. When my noble friend says that we are in favour of these arrangements, is that because we think that it will make the euro stronger or weaker?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is right some of the conditions for entry into the euro that were laid out in the Maastricht treaty, and other conditions including those on deficits, have been broken. I believe that there is a sense of moral hazard because they have been bailed out, but it is in the interests of everyone within Europe to make sure that no further countries find themselves in financial trouble. That is why the eurozone is itself taking steps to try to manage its affairs in a more coherent way.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, with the puppies snapping at his heels, but will he accept my congratulations on the first few paragraphs of the Statement which say that we indeed think that it is in Britain's interest to bring stability to the eurozone? That is an important signal for people in the City of London and elsewhere who think the opposite.
	Secondly, President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel and our Prime Minister have written a joint letter on the budget. If we are going to have that close triangular relationship, does it not follow that that will probably be true of banking, energy policy and other areas? The question of creep towards Brussels running things, which is a bit of hyperbole, is one of evolution rather than any major revolutionary change.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes, we are in favour of stability in the eurozone, but we also feel that it is entirely right for nation states to stand up for their interests and to get together. That is in a way exactly what happened in this letter between Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and others, who suggested-rightly, in my view-that it is time for the European budget to come under further control. That is not seeking to centralise power within Brussels; it is seeking to exert more pressure and more control from member states on the European Union. That is a very good direction of travel.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord has been under attack for trying to kowtow to his Eurosceptic Back-Benchers in the Tory Party. Some of us think that the Government kowtow far too much to the Europhiles, so there is a real difference of opinion. In all the latest opinion polls, a majority of the British people do not want any further powers to be ceded to Europe, and over half of them would like to leave the European Union.
	Could I ask the noble Lord a question about the eurozone? In one part of the report, the statement is made that it could work only if there was fiscal union as well- saying that it did not want to tell the European Union this, but going on to do so anyway. Is the noble Lord aware that any reform with regard to the larger powers involves fiscal union? That is what France, Germany and, indeed, Italy want. Can I have the assurance that this would be opposed by the British Government and, perhaps, even by the British people through a referendum?

Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord says that we have been accused of kowtowing too much to Europhiles. We have certainly been accused of kowtowing to Eurosceptics. The main point of this, which the noble Lord has understood very well, is that we have said clearly that if there is to be a transfer of power from this Parliament to the European Union, it should be subject to a referendum. We hear what people are saying in various polls about their view that too much power has been ceded, that they are not consulted enough and it is all being done the wrong way. We will make this a matter of statute when later in this Session we get to the European Bill, which I hope the noble Lord and other noble Lords will support.
	The countries of the eurozone need to sort out their own problems. No doubt some of us will have different views as to how that should be done but, if there was a move down the road towards a European-wide fiscal solution for European-wide economic problems, we would oppose it.

Lord Trimble: My Lords-

Lord Dykes: My Lords-

Baroness Northover: I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and then the noble Lord, Lord Dykes.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say with regard to the proposed new bailout proposals that they affect only the eurozone and do not affect us, so there is no change in our position and no need to consider a referendum on the issue. However, it is probably worth pointing out that, with regard to the eurozone, the proposed changes would be very substantial indeed. The new proposals empower the EU to enforce strict conditionality, which the Wall Street Journal says today is bureaucrat-speak for telling a country what it must do on taxes, spending and economic policy as a price for being rescued. Those are very substantial changes.

Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend is absolutely correct; they are substantial changes. However, the eurozone needs substantial changes because of the problems that it has found itself in.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, the Prime Minister's Statement says that the eurozone needs major reforms. What specific items did he have in mind?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not for us to tell the eurozone how to sort out its own problems. I have laid out some proposals this afternoon on how we think Europe should grow again, and I stand by them.

Lord Gilbert: Has it not become clear to even the blindest Eurofanatic that the real problem with the eurozone is that the north is moving at a very different rate from the south, and that tensions would be considerably relieved if they broke up into two?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that that is plain to everybody, nor is it, I think, a desirable solution. What is desirable is that the member countries should work together to find common solutions to common problems, including economic ones. If that means that the eurozone needs to rewrite its rules, then that is exactly what it should do.

Immigration: High Court Ruling
	 — 
	Statement

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my friend the Minister of State for Immigration. The Statement is as follows.
	"In June, when the Government announced that they would consult on how to implement a permanent limit on economic migrants, we also said that we would impose an interim limit, until the permanent one took effect. This was to avoid a surge of applications in anticipation of the permanent limit.
	The interim limit was given effect through changes to the Immigration Rules which were laid before Parliament and on which an oral Statement was made. On Friday, we received the judgment that the changes announced provide insufficient legal basis for the operation of the interim limit.
	The judgment was based on a technical procedural point, known as Pankina grounds. The court decided that this meant more detail about the manner in which the limit is set, including its level, should have been included in the Immigration Rules changes laid before Parliament.
	I would like to make it clear that the judgment of the court was concerned solely with the technicalities of how the interim limits were introduced. It was in no way critical of, or prejudicial to, the Government's policy of applying a limit to economic migration to the United Kingdom, either permanently or on an interim basis.
	The policy objective of a limit in migration has not been called into question and I am now considering what steps are required to reapply an interim limit consistent with the findings of the court.
	Tomorrow I will be laying changes to the Immigration Rules which will set out the details the court required. This will enable us to reinstate the interim limits on a clear legal basis. The House will be interested to know that I will also be laying changes to the rules tomorrow to close applications under the tier 1 general route from outside the United Kingdom, as the original level specified on this tier has been reached. I can reassure the House that the policy of using these limits as part of our overall policy of reducing net migration is unchanged. I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the urgent question in the other place as a Statement.
	Migration has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to our country, but it is also essential that it is properly controlled for reasons of both economic well-being and social cohesion. Over the past few years, the previous Government put in transitional controls on EU migration; a suspension of unskilled work permits; a tough but flexible points system to manage skilled migration; tighter regulation of overseas students, leading to the closure of 140 bogus colleges; and new citizenship requirements for those seeking settlement.
	At the general election, the leader of the Conservative Party proposed to go further in two key respects. First, he proposed a new target to reduce net migration to tens of thousands by 2015. To meet that target he pledged a cap on immigration, which he said would be tougher than the points system. Since then, the Government have been in wholesale retreat.
	The Home Affairs Committee and the Migration Advisory Committee have highlighted that the cap not only excludes EU migration but covers only 20 per cent of non-EU migration. The CBI, Chambers of Commerce, universities, UK and foreign companies have highlighted the damage the Government's proposals would have meant for business investment and job creation.
	As a result, we have the retreat confirmed by the Home Secretary on 23 November. We have also learnt of the funding cuts in the noble Baroness's department, leading to the cutting of the number of border officers and staff by nearly a quarter, raising serious questions about the security of our borders and whether the Government's policy can actually be implemented.
	We come to the way in which the Home Secretary imposed the cap. On 28 June, the Home Secretary came to the other place to announce, without consultation, an immediate and temporary cap on non-EU migration. Details of this cap were then posted on the Home Office website, but not presented to Parliament. On Friday, the High Court ruled that the actions of the Home Secretary were in fact illegal. Lord Justice Sullivan said,
	"There can be no doubt that she"-
	the Home Secretary-
	"was attempting to sidestep provisions for Parliamentary scrutiny ... and her attempt was for that reason unlawful".
	As a result, the Government's much heralded cap does not in fact exist. As Lord Justice Sullivan said,
	"no interim limits were lawfully published ... by the Secretary of State ... there is not, and never has been, a limit on the number of applicants who may be admitted".
	In the light of this chaotic situation, on the consequences of the error, what is the status of those who applied under the illegal cap but were rejected? Will their applications now be granted? Can the Minister tell the House how many more migrants she now expects to enter the UK, while the cap is out of action? And in this light, is it still the target of this Government to cut net migration to tens of thousands by 2015, as the Prime Minister pledged before the election? Or is this mistake one reason why the Home Secretary is now trying to water down this target to just an aim?
	Secondly, how did we get into this mess in the first place? Did Ministers ask for and receive legal advice before the summer about the legality of the temporary cap and the rushed way they were introducing it? Can she confirm that, in fact, Ministers were warned by officials and lawyers that there was a real risk of legal challenge if Parliament were bypassed in this way? Will the Minister agree to lay before Parliament all the legal advice on which the decision to proceed was based in order to dispel the impression that they have acted in a reckless and chaotic manner and to show that Home Office Ministers have nothing to hide in this regard?

Baroness Neville-Jones: I am extremely glad to hear that noble Lords opposite can agree that migration into this country needs to be controlled. The problem is that it is insufficiently controlled. The Government remain attached to their target of controlling migration down to levels of the tens of thousands that we had at the beginning of this century.
	It is not clear to me how the noble Lord gets the idea that the Government are in "wholesale retreat". Let me give him an example of the way in which the Government are most certainly not in wholesale retreat. In the Statement, it was announced that we were closing the applications for the limit on tier 1 general. This is because the limit of 5,100 has already been reached. Had we gone on at the same rate, we would have had a higher level of migration under that tier; it would probably be roughly double what it was last year. We do not consider that an acceptable rate of migration, and we have therefore closed that category. So it is not at all clear to me that we are in "wholesale retreat".
	Of course, we have yet to see the statement and the judgment in writing. It would be unwise of me to go too far until we have seen that. What seems to be clear is that the court was critical of the decision to put the cap limit into the guidance, rather than into the rules. I am not aware that there are further problems. Did the Home Office take legal advice on the matter? Yes, it did. Are the Government going to publish that legal advice? No, the previous Government did not do so, and we are not going to do so either.

Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, I express two declarations of interest. My first is as the chairman of the Institute of Cancer Research. I made a speech in your Lordships' House some weeks ago expressing my severe misgivings about aspects of the Government's policy, in which I said that that policy, as it stands at present, is preventing eminent international scientific researchers from entering this country. That is clearly an unintended consequence-yet another example of some of the unintended consequences that have streamed from Whitehall during the past few weeks.
	My second declaration of interest is as a former business manager in the other House and as a member of the Legislation Committee for seven years. The notion that this is a technical oversight is not true; it is a kindergarten error. I cannot recall in my time on the Legislation Committee, or as a business manager in the other place, anyone overlooking the parliamentary procedure to which my noble friend refers.
	Some weeks ago I had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Home Office, in which I set out my views on the unintended consequences of his actions, and he promised to write to me. I have still not heard back from him-perhaps this is an intended consequence of our meeting. Will my noble friend please assure me that in future these errors will not be committed by the Home Office and will she give me further reassurance that she will have a word with Ministers in the Home Office to ensure that between now and April, when these matters come into permanent effect, they will look seriously at the misgivings that some of us have expressed about their policy over the past few weeks?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I say two things to my noble friend. First, he said that this was a kindergarten error, but we actually took legal advice. On his second, more substantive point, perhaps he missed my honourable friend the Immigration Minister's announcement that, when the permanent scheme comes into effect, it will not necessarily be precisely the same as the interim structure. We are consulting on that structure and listening to what people have said. One of the changes that have already been announced is that we will create a category for international talent-people whom this country badly needs. I hope that my noble friend's anxieties on that score are somewhat alleviated by the Government's willingness to listen to the points that are being made to us.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the press reported Friday's judgment as Parliament having been insufficiently consulted, which seems a reasonable précis of the explanation that the Minister has given. That being the case-and she has told the House that changes to the rules will be laid tomorrow to enable the Government to reinstate the interim limits on a clear basis-will she explain what the procedure will be and what consultation of Parliament there will be?
	I would like to try to find a positive in this. During the period in which the cap has applied, whether properly or not, have the Government been able to take any comments or details from employers or indeed employees from particular sectors that will feed into decisions about the permanent limits? When the Minister gave evidence to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee earlier this year, she said that the Government would keep the interim limits under constant review to assess whether they were meeting the objectives outlined and, indeed, that they would monitor any unintended consequences.

Baroness Neville-Jones: The judgment that the court has arrived at indicates that we ought to have formulated the rules differently and the consequence of that is that we stand accused of not having consulted Parliament adequately on that point. I might say that that was not done with any intention to obviate our obligations to the legislature; this was laid out before Parliament in good faith. We felt that one of the ways in which it would be helpful to have greater flexibility when putting in the interim arrangements was to have the figure in the guidance so that it would be easy, in the light of the kind of consultation that we wished to conduct, to carry numbers over from one month to the next. I have to say that, in putting the figures into the rules, as no doubt we will now do, there will be greater rigidity in the arrangements that have to be arrived at.
	The noble Baroness asked two other questions. One was whether we would consult on the changes to the new rules. Our obligation in this instance is to get ourselves into conformity with the judgment and I hope therefore that there will be no argument about what we do. She also asked whether we had listened to employers from particular sectors. The answer is that we have been consulting extremely widely and in all sectors.

Lord Richard: Do the Government intend to consult Parliament now? If so, how are they going to do it? The Minister said that there would be increased rigidity. What did she mean by that?

Baroness Neville-Jones: As I said, my Lords, the object of the Statement tomorrow will be to get us into conformity, as we understand it, with the judgment. Then, when we see the judgment in writing, if we need to make further changes in the light of that, we will certainly do so. It is not clear to me how much clearer I can be on the question of the nature of the rigidity introduced by the cap. There is complex drafting involved in putting a limit in the rules to give us the ability then to change it, which is why the Government decided, in order to retain flexibility, that we would keep the limit in the guidance.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that new controls over migration are of limited value unless there is effective border control over those entering and leaving the country? Does she therefore understand my disappointment that she has apparently decided that the coalition agreement pledge to "reintroduce exit checks" cannot be fulfilled until 2015, which is later than the former Labour Government planned to introduce this change? Given that her Written Answers to me reveal that only some 5 per cent of those departing the UK are currently subject to exit controls, and that there is complacency at the Home Office on the need for urgent action, will she hold urgent discussions with our right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to whom she is responsible for national security, with a view to getting something done?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I am not clear quite how relevant the points that my noble friend has just made are to this debate. Most of the people coming in, except for a very small number, are sponsored to this country, so it will not be difficult to know when they are moving-their employers will not be able to have a new person in, in the absence of being able to demonstrate that those who previously had that sponsorship have left.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, she said that the Government will be involving the other place in the proposed changes to be announced tomorrow. Will there be a similar process whereby this House can be involved with those changes?

Baroness Neville-Jones: That is a matter for the usual channels.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it is not the intention of the Government that we question but the fact that this has bypassed the scrutiny of Parliament, which was precisely what the judgment was all about. May I ask the Minister about something that is still not clear? She mentioned that a Statement would be made tomorrow. Are we expecting a Statement or are we expecting changes in the rules for the interim cap? Either way, will we have the opportunity in Parliament to debate or at least to comment on the changes to the rules?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, the Statement will deal with the changes in the rules. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that the rules will then change immediately-that is to say, the rule change will be commenced immediately to rectify tier 2. Also, as was contained in the Statement, the Government will be closing tier 1 on 23 December. As a result of these timetable changes, it will not be possible to meet the 21-day convention for laying rules, but we will write to the Merits Committee about that matter.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, if the object of the Government's policy is to reduce net migration, is not her noble friend's question about numbers of people leaving the country extremely relevant and should not that therefore be taken into consideration?

Baroness Neville-Jones: Hundreds of thousands of people leave the country. This is normal travel. Among that number are those who are here on some kind of immigration visa for the purposes of employment. As I said, very few of those who come here to work come without any kind of sponsorship. There is a small category of entrepreneurs and investors who are in that position. Otherwise, people who come here to work have sponsors. Sponsors are not able to replace them. There cannot be a net increase in the migration to this country in the absence of the person who sponsored the employment giving notification of the departure of the employee and the reinstatement of a new person, if they wish it. We can therefore keep control and knowledge of movement of people in this position.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the Government are right to recognise the concern that the population at large has on the number of immigrants coming into the United Kingdom. The present cap, however, applies only to non-EU countries-presumably that includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There is also increasing concern at the number of immigrants coming from within the European Union, which will increasingly become a political problem in the United Kingdom. Are the Government avoiding that issue simply because they are members of the European Union and can do nothing about it?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, we are members of the European Union and there are obligations for free movement of labour within the European Union. The noble Lord is right to say that we honour our obligations.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would my noble friend suggest that somebody in the Home Office should advertise on the internet on one of the job vacancy websites such as Gumtree and see who answers the advertisement? She would find, as I have found, that a large number of the applications would come from people who have student visas-I am glad to see the noble and learned Baroness over there, because she has had experience of getting caught on this, as I very nearly did-and that many of them, when one replies and asks for their immigration status, disappear very smartly. There are masses of people coming into this country seeking work illegally, so does the Minister not agree that the suggestion of my noble friend of having exit checks would be one way of finding out whether those who are admitted, for example as students, ever leave the country at all? Also, surely she agrees that it would be extremely foolish for the Government to set the precedent of publishing, as has been requested, the legal advice given to Ministers in confidence. That would not be the way of ensuring that Ministers receive blunt, honest and open legal advice in future.

Baroness Neville-Jones: On my noble friend's last point, the Government are clear that we are not going to publish the legal advice that we get, for precisely the reason that he has stated. Such advice needs to be given in confidence by our advisers in the knowledge that it will not subsequently be made public.
	On my noble friend's other points, I entirely agree that there are a number of people who try to take up work illegally in this country. It is precisely that practice that the Government want to end. This is why we are introducing refinements of the controls that are already in place and making the qualifying criteria for ability to work in this country tougher. The object of the exercise is undoubtedly to ensure that those who get the right to work here are legally here under the qualifications that we are setting. He is also right to say that a number of people apply under categories of so-called skilled labour when they are clearly unskilled. That is a practice that we also intend to bring to an end.
	Lastly, on the point of external immigration checks, the Government are aware of the concern on this issue and they are, indeed, going to bring in these exit checks. There are problems related to the contract which the previous Government negotiated and which we have had to end. That means that we have to find other ways of bringing in that exit check, but we will do so as early as we are able to. I have given my noble friend who asked the question earlier an estimate of when we are going to be able to do this. If we could do it earlier, we certainly would.

Lord Richard: My Lords, could the noble Baroness help me? Did I hear right? The consultation with Parliament is to be by means of a Statement in the other House. That Statement is to be a declaration rather than consultation with that House. We do not know yet whether it will be taken in this House and, if it is taken in this House, we do not know what consultation there will be in this House. In any case, it is going to happen tomorrow and the Government are proposing to renounce-if that is the right word-the 21-day rule. Is that really the position that the Government are taking in order to satisfy the Court of Appeal? If it is, the Court of Appeal may still be interested.

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I think that the Court of Appeal would expect the Government to rectify their position as soon as they are able to. As for the noble Lord's other point, as I have said, that is a matter for the usual channels.

Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, with permission, may I come to the assistance of my noble friend? Unless I am very much mistaken, the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is, "Yes, they have to". If they did not do so, there would be difficult consequences for the Government.

Baroness Neville-Jones: The Government must clearly put themselves in the position of being in conformity with the law.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: What discussion have the Government had with the Government of Scotland in relation to this?

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I cannot answer that question immediately, but I believe that immigration is a federal matter.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The Government of Scotland have expressed a view to the Government of the United Kingdom concerning this. It is a matter on which they have expressed a different view from that of the Government of the United Kingdom. Have the Government of the United Kingdom not had some discussions with them in relation to it?

Baroness Neville-Jones: As I said, I am not entirely able to answer that question. Perhaps I may add one point for the information of the House. The Statement tomorrow will be a Written Ministerial Statement and it will be open to your Lordships' House to pray against this matter if it should wish to.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Bill Main Page

Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 44A
	 Tabled by Lord Elystan-Morgan
	44A: Clause 8, page 6, line 6, after ""No"," insert-
	"( ) more than 40% of those eligible to vote have voted,"

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I do not wish to move this amendment or Amendment 45A, but I reserve the right to raise the matter at an appropriate time.
	Amendment 44A not moved.
	Amendment 44B not moved.
	Amendment 45
	 Moved by Lord Lipsey
	45: Clause 8, page 6, line 7, leave out paragraph (b)

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I apologise for my eagerness to get on with the House's consideration of the Bill. I know we have a lot of work to do and that the House is eager to do it. With this amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Bach and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer have appended their names and added a complementary amendment, we come to the political heart of the Bill. This is the buckle that ties together the two bits of the Bill-the AV referendum on the one hand and the reduction of MPs and redrawing of constituency boundaries on the other. The first bit is the fervent wish of the Lib Dem partners in the coalition; the second is the fervent wish of the Conservative partners in the coalition.
	Before I explain why I believe that to be misguided, I will get my retaliation in first to an intervention that I would otherwise expect. My objection is not to both measures being in one Bill. I know that there is a case to be made that the Government I supported included many more than two measures in their Constitutional Reform and Governance Act before the general election. It is interesting to speculate about what the full purpose of that Bill was since it clearly could not pass before the general election. Partly, no doubt, we felt that the wise British people would be very appreciative of all the proposals that we were putting forward, but we were particularly interested in the reaction of the Liberal Democrats. We realised that we might have to form some kind of agreement with them after a general election and we wanted to show that we shared their views. After a few months of observing the Lib Dems in government, I think we were totally wrong about what their views were. We thought they were constitutional and economic liberals; it turns out that they are constitutional conservatives and economic reactionaries.
	I will pass swiftly on. What I object to is not that the two measures appear in one Bill but that they are conditional. They enter the concept of conditionality into our legislation. You can only do the one if you do the other, too. This seems wholly wrong. Either these two proposals-the AV referendum and the constituency redrawing-are justified on their individual merits or they are not. There can be no case whatever for saying, "We'll only do one if we do the other", in logic or constitutional parlance, although we understand the political realities of this. It says a lot about the nature of the coalition and, in particular, the atmosphere in which it was formed. This stuff is here because the two coalition partners, when they were negotiating their agreement, did not trust each other. They could see that there was a grubby deal to be made.
	The Lib Dems could make some headway on electoral reform. They did not want AV and there was a system they liked more but they understood the realities. The Tories were trying to change the number of constituencies and their boundaries so that they won more seats at the next general election. The deal that was made between them was that they would do both. Because one proposition was likely to lead to fewer Conservative seats and one to more Conservative seats, they decided to bung them together-all that I understand. What is sad, and does not increase one's confidence in the long-term viability of the coalition, is that the parties so distrusted each other that they wanted it incorporated into legislation in the subsection before the House at the moment.
	This is a more political speech than I would like to make in Committee but this is a political clause. We have to understand it. Some bits of the Bill are technical. We will come to those and deal with them in a technical way but this is a political clause. My next observation about this provision is that it says a lot about the balance of power within the coalition. The Lib Dems did not say, "Our condition for giving you the boundary changes that suit you is that we get the electoral system that suits us". They feebly said, "Our condition for your getting the boundary changes you want is that we get not AV but a go at AV through a referendum". However, if the referendum is lost, which, as a strong supporter of AV, I hope it will not be, the Conservatives can still have their boundary changes and reduce the number of MPs.
	We will come to the substance of the case about the number of MPs later in our debates. Suffice it to say that no case of merit has yet been put forward for reducing the size of the House of Commons. It may be that there is such a case to be made-I look forward to Ministers developing it-but we have not heard a word about it yet. So far we have just heard the Government admit that they got a figure straight out of the air and incorporated it into a Bill. We have seen no case made-not for greater constituency equalisation, which I would grant-for the figure of 5 per cent included in the Bill, which, as we shall see when we get to it, is not a sensible figure for the variance in the size of constituencies. Nor has the case been made that the exemptions in the Bill get anywhere near meeting the very strong case that can be made for further exemptions.
	The suspicion must be that the measures in Part 2 of the Bill are entirely designed for the sole purpose of increasing the number of Conservative seats at the next general election. If the Government can produce a statistical analysis from a reputable team of psephologists that says that it will not have that effect, the House will be delighted to see and discuss it. However, I say with no little confidence that they will not be able to do that because the effects are as I have described them.
	I do not want to detain the House for too long on this but my third point is about how much the Government must regret the need to link these two measures. How sorry they must be. In any sensible world, if it is true that the coalition wants the referendum to take place on 5 May 2011, it would have introduced two separate pieces of legislation. There would have been one on the alternative vote, which might well have concluded its stage in your Lordships' House if not tonight then in the first session in the new year, after the good examination that we have given it. The Government could then go ahead with the AV referendum. They could then take a more measured approach to the constituencies bit of the Bill. They could even have allowed it to be subject to some measure of joint scrutiny, without prejudicing their timetable to get it into effect by the next election. They could have allowed, as we propose later in the Bill, that there should be some conference-a royal commission or Speaker's Conference-on the number of MPs to take a rational view as to what should happen. That consideration could have moved in parallel to your Lordships' House considering the AV bit of the Bill.
	Where are we? Your Lordships have an awful lot of the Bill to consider as yet. We are to do so against the looming timetable; the Electoral Commission has made clear when it requires the Bill to be passed to allow the campaign for 5 May to occur on an orderly path. We are struggling to meet this wholly artificial timetable, imposed by the Government solely because of the political deal that they have done and the fact that neither party trusts the other to abide by its words.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Is it not even worse, from the Liberal Democrat point of view, that they are clearly not very good negotiators? The deal that has emerged is wholly lopsided, as the chances are that their part of the deal-they wanted AV-will not happen and therefore they will have nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

Lord Lipsey: My noble friend would say that, but I cannot possibly comment because I believe of course that AV will win a referendum whenever it is held.

Lord Campbell-Savours: They would have something to say if the amendment that I tabled was accepted. I have tabled an amendment that would be extremely helpful to the Liberal Democrats on that very issue.

Lord Lipsey: When we table amendments from this side of the House we do not consider their partisan impact; we merely consider their impact on the constitution of this country. I am sure that if my noble friend's amendment meets that test, it will be given proper and due consideration by the House.
	In moving this amendment I give the Government and the House an opportunity to say that each of the two propositions-the AV proposition and the number of MPs/seats proposition-should have separate consideration. They should be taken on their constitutional merits as a whole and treated in that way. I deeply regret, and what is more I believe that the Government will have reason deeply to regret, that the reality of the way in which they have chosen to proceed will make consideration of the issues on their merits more difficult for the House.

Lord Bach: I will speak to both amendments. The first is in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who has moved it so ably, and the second is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Clause 8(1)(b) is an astonishing paragraph of this Bill. It is very remarkable. It was overlooked in debates in the other place, which perhaps makes it all the more important that we debate it properly in this House and in this Committee.
	Clause 8 informs the Minister what to do following the result of the referendum being announced. If more votes in the referendum are cast in favour of the answer yes than in favour of the answer no, the Minister must make an order that brings into force provisions to change our voting system for elections to the House of Commons from first past the post to this type of alternative vote system. However, that is not the end of it. An affirmative result in the referendum is not sufficient according to the Bill. The changes in the boundaries detailed in Part 2 of the Bill, particularly in Clause 10, must also have taken place before the alternative vote system can take effect.
	In Committee last Monday the Committee was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, tell the House that he and the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were joined at the hip on this Bill. I wondered what it is that joins them at the hip on this Bill. I now believe it sincerely to be Clause 8(1)(b) that joins them thus. It has been clear from the introduction of this Bill that this clause is the glue that holds the Government together. Part 1 of the Bill, as was said at Second Reading, is clearly and plainly the Liberal Democrat part of the deal. However AV may have been described by their leader in the past, the Liberal Democrats have decided that it is worth the candle and that it is best not to go searching for some sort of proportional representation, or certainly not at the moment.
	Part 2, which we will come to in due course, slashes the House of Commons by 50 Members of Parliament, from 650 to 600, with all the consequences for the quality of representation. It redraws every constituency boundary according to a rigid mathematical formula, and that is the Conservative part of the deal. The Conservatives sometimes appear haunted, indeed almost obsessed, by a suspicion that the current electoral arrangements are biased against them. This Bill is their fight back; their chance to get their own back. Of course biases exist, but electoral geography is merely an element of this. As has been debated in Committee and at Second Reading, other factors such as the efficiency of the distribution of parties' votes, are, we would argue, much more significant. However, I do not think the Conservative part of the Government, or the Government as a whole, believe that-or will not acknowledge it.
	This Bill is the coalition agreement in miniature. It is vital for both sides to get their parts of the bargain. I assume that is why noble Lords on the government Benches, those who represent both parties that make up the coalition and whom one might have expected to speak out more on various elements of the Bill, have been so-I was going to say well behaved but perhaps quiet is the better word. As the high point of the coalition agreement, this Bill, and specifically Clause 8(1)(b) and Clause 8(3), accurately demonstrates the inequity, mentioned by my noble friend mentioned a moment ago, of the deal bartered out over those famous five days in May, about which so many books have already been written-and how many more can we expect? As it stands, even if 99 per cent of the population were to vote in favour of changing the Westminster voting system to this version of AV, this change could not come about until the Secretary of State had laid before Parliament the reports of the boundary commissions and a draft Order in Council giving effect to the recommendations contained in the reports of the boundary commissions.
	We know, or we will soon find out, that Part 2 of this Bill is controversial in itself, as was clear in the debates in the other place and from the lobbying that we have all received all the way from academia to the Keep Cornwall Whole campaign. The intended rules to redraw the constituency boundaries are unpopular, not least because they subjugate the sensible and logical needs to acknowledge community ties and geography when formulating constituencies.
	It is not beyond possibility that the boundary changes detailed in Clause 10 are delayed or altered in some way. What then for the alternative vote? What then if, for example, a large majority has voted for AV? Is that result of that referendum simply to be ignored? As the Bill stands, it seems to say yes to that question. Why did the Minister's party accept this? Why did it not insist at the very least in writing a reverse bind into the Bill? We support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Lipsey have made me think about one slightly wider aspect that really troubles me and which should trouble Conservative Members opposite. My noble friend Lord Bach has just outlined how we face a major change in the electoral system for the House of Commons and a major boundary revision being rushed through without appeal. In addition, we are to get a Bill for a fixed-term Parliament, which we still have to discuss, which again is a major change for the United Kingdom and is totally different from anything that we have had previously in the UK Parliament. We will also soon get a Bill-it has not yet been published-to reform this second Chamber. The proposal is for all these major constitutional changes to be rushed through in one Parliament. It really is quite a frightening prospect. It is bad enough for Labour Peers, given all our radical-

Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke: Instincts.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Instincts. I thank my former boss-the former Secretary of State for Scotland-who always chooses the right word for me. However, it seems astonishing that Conservative Members can face this situation with equanimity.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My noble friend has only just begun to touch on the scale of the changes that are impetuously and dangerously being rushed through Parliament. We also have the European Union Bill, which will lead to a proliferation of referendums every time there is a possibility of some shift of power between Brussels and London. We have the Localism Bill, which will turn local government absolutely upside down and will, in many ways, eviscerate it. This Government are extraordinarily reckless.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Reckless is the word for it. As my noble friend Lord Bach was talking, I was sitting here and considering what the common factor was behind all this. It is the Deputy Prime Minister. I must choose my words carefully, but I do not think that he thinks in British terms. He thinks in terms of continental European constitutions and is moving our constitution inexorably towards some kind of continental European constitution, with fixed-term Parliaments, a different electoral system, and changing the composition of the second Chamber-all of this. Okay, that is the agenda, but is it a Conservative agenda? Is it one that all my friends on the Conservative Benches really feel in their guts, in their blood, their water or their instincts? Some of them are my friends-there are only three on the Back Benches at the moment but there were quite a few earlier. I am sorry, there are more; there are five of them. I missed the two distinguished Members perching in the corner. Do they really want this country to go that way?
	Someone is shaking his head almost imperceptibly, but I can see it. I know that I am going well beyond the terms of the amendment. If someone with the powers of a Speaker of the House of Commons was in the chair, they would be drawing my attention to it. However, this is relevant, because we are going down a road which is really troubling me and should be troubling Members opposite even more.

Lord Deben: My Lords, I wonder whether it is possible for us to imagine the state of mind of those on the other side who, having suggested AV, now consider this to be evidence of a plot. They themselves recognised that we should have a system whereby constituencies should be at least more or less the same size, which was why they stopped-it was they who did it-keeping a special factor to enable people in dispersed constituencies to have fewer Members of Parliament. It was a Labour decision to stop that. They now come to the House and argue that both things are unacceptable. Surely being fair is a Conservative concept. Should we not have constituencies of the same size? That seems to be a very Conservative principle.
	Is it not also a Conservative principle to suggest that the public might make their own choices in these circumstances? It happens to be a Conservative principle with which I disagree. I do not believe in referenda and I never have believed in them. However, it is very curious that noble Lords opposite suggest there is something intrinsically un-Conservative in having a referendum. I do not understand that at all. There is something deeply wrong in referenda, but that does not mean that people who believe in them could not be Conservative.
	Why are Labour Members making such a fuss about this matter? Could it possibly be that they are seeking with some real difficulty to find reasons why they should spend as much time as possible discussing these matters? I do not want to help them in that, so I will finish by saying one simple thing. I came to this House expecting and finding that there was, in many cases, a degree of quality in debate unfound in my 35 years in the House of Commons. I am very sad to find that during these recent Bills, those who have experience of the House of Commons and those who have been press-ganged into the little battle have used all the techniques which brought and bring the other House into such disrepute. I am very sorry that yet again on this Bill we have lowered ourselves to doing the kinds of things which are done elsewhere. It is a pity that we cannot look back on our traditions, even for someone as newly hatched as myself, and raise the standards again.

Lord Bach: Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. It is really just information that I seek. He says that it was the Labour Government who changed the rules to make it not possible for more rural seats to have a smaller electorate. I should be grateful if he could give us chapter and verse on that. As I understand them, the rules we work under now were passed under a Conservative Government in 1986 of which I think he was almost certainly a distinguished and leading member. We actually believe that those rules are well worth preserving.

Lord Deben: Perhaps I may reply to that. The change to the sparsity rules, continued in the 1986 arrangements, was brought in by the Labour Government, who argued that it was unfair that some constituents, because there was a smaller number of them in a constituency, would have a bigger vote than other constituents. All that is happening in this Bill is that we are repeating to the Labour Party something which it has long forgotten.

Lord Bach: The noble Lord must have been very upset in the mid-1980s, when he played a prominent role in the then Conservative Government, who just followed what Labour had done.

Lord Deben: I do not believe that I get upset as easily as the noble Lord thinks. All that I believe is true is that we tried for a consensus. What is happening now is the correction of a deeply offensive fact that some constituents have a much smaller vote than others, because of the retention of very small constituencies which ought not to be there.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is suggesting that the debates so far on the Bill have not been appropriate. If he reads Hansard, he will see that contributions from all around the House have been thoughtful, succinct and related to entirely appropriate matters that Parliament ought to be thinking about. I put it to him that the cynicism of the motivation of the coalition in yoking, as they have, the two main components of the Bill together is a sore provocation to us and might have tempted some of us to engage in wrecking tactics. The fact that we have not done so reflects very well on us.

Lord Soley: I do not want to follow the line pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because it sounds to me like he was embarking on a filibuster in debating party political issues. I simply say to him that if he is worried about traditions-and he ought to be worried about them-one of the traditions he should remember is that it is particularly important that you do not drive through major constitutional changes without a large measure of agreement between the parties. One of those changes relates to the size of the House of Commons. As the noble Lord will know, if you act as an international observer at elections overseas, one thing that you note is who decides the size of the Parliament and how they decide it. If the Government decide it without the consent of opposition parties, you usually mark the election down. However, that is another matter that we shall pursue at a later stage. The Minister will recognise the filibuster by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who has long experience of doing that. From my experience in the House of Commons, he was one of the people who got a reputation for filibustering there.
	I have a particular question for the Minister raised by this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. It came to my mind when my noble friend Lord Bach was speaking. My noble friend mentioned the important issue of the commission having to report first. The Minister will know that there is an agreement whereby Orkney and Shetland and, I believe, the Western Isles have already been accorded special status. He will also know that there is very strong pressure from the Member for the Isle of Wight-a Conservative Member-and all the major political parties representing the councils on the Isle of Wight to be treated in the same way as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. He will also be aware that there is a major campaign in Cornwall for Cornwall to be treated in a way that recognises its historic-and, I should add, traditional, to keep the noble Lord, Lord Deben, happy-boundaries. My question to the Minister is this: if there is a legal challenge based on the fact that Cornwall and the Isle of Wight have not been accorded the same conditions as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland, could these changes go ahead? I know that people are talking of a legal challenge, so it is an important issue. I do not know whether such a challenge would be possible. It occurred to me when my noble friend Lord Bach was speaking so I have not been able to take advice on it. However, given the reasons that we have already heard as to why the two Scottish areas have been given special circumstances, it would seem at least possible for the Isle of Wight, certainly, and possibly Cornwall, where it would be a bit more difficult, to mount a legal challenge. I should like the Minister to address that in his reply.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Indeed, if there were to be such a challenge, perhaps I may make the case on behalf of Ynys Môn, otherwise known as the Isle of Anglesey, where there is a similar situation and which is clearly a compact, single constituency. If the Isle of Wight were to issue a challenge, I do not know whether the representatives of Ynys Môn would do the same. Clearly, if there were such a challenge, it would be likely to be at least prima facie justiciable. It would therefore very likely take some time and the Government's timetable would be knocked sideways.
	My main point during this brief intervention is that I am perhaps the last person to lecture the opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the principles of Conservatism. However, I should have thought that one of those principles would be a respect for the constitution-a broadening down from precedent to precedent. The great Conservative thinkers, be they Burke, Hailsham or Oakeshott at the LSE, have all adhered to an enormous respect for the accumulated wisdom of the ages and have therefore had a certain unwillingness to go full steam ahead in changing structures for their own sake. The point has been well made by my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Howarth that this seems to be an enormous bundle of changes, many of them ill thought-through and ill digested.
	Finally, another Conservative principle which, again, perhaps is not honoured on this occasion is respect for the wisdom of Parliament. One conclusion that I have reached in listening to this debate is that there seems to be no willingness on the part of the government Front Bench to listen and to modify their position in the light of arguments that have been adduced. I do not think that I have ever come across a case where the juggernaut of the coalition has moved at such a pace, is so deaf to the quality of the arguments that have been raised and is unwilling to make any concession at all. I say with all humility that I cannot see the coalition Government gaining from this if they act in a traditionally non-Conservative spirit which wholly ignores the quality of the contributions not only from this side but in excellent speeches from the Cross Benches. They may well live to regret the attitude that they have taken to this Bill, and I hope it is not a precedent for other Bills that come before this Parliament.

Lord McAvoy: My Lords, I shall be even more brief than my noble friend who has just spoken. I shall not be bullied or harassed by the tetchiness shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I specifically put on the record a refutation of the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I remember very clearly the noble Lord when he and I were Members in another place. My summary of the situation was that, when the Conservative Opposition wished to delay or prolong debate, he seemed to be wheeled on to speak at great length. To give him credit for consistency, he has always managed to speak with self-assurance and self-confidence and with an air of always being right. That is very impressive.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Perhaps I may inform my noble friend that, having heard the son of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the House of Commons, it is clear that there is an hereditary factor there.

Lord McAvoy: Surely not. That could not possibly be the case on the other side of the Chamber. I shall get to my point. One evening last week, I spoke on this very important Bill for two periods of about two minutes each and then for a third time for about five or six minutes, making 10 minutes in total, so I do not think that I can be accused of filibustering and so on. I was involved as much as anybody and the only House of Commons attitude that I see in this House is a capacity of Governments of both kinds, Labour and Conservative-because it is an elected House and that is fair enough-to ram Bills through with strict timetables and so on. Here, the Government are trying to ram through an important constitutional change without any regard to the views that are put forward, and they are getting very annoyed because people want to make and answer points. If they do not answer them, they will be on record as never having answered. I genuinely do not believe that there is any filibustering going on here. If the noble Lord had been here more often, he would have heard the wide range of different views on this side of the Chamber on these very matters. Therefore, he should be a bit fairer about this.

Lord Howarth of Newport: I hope that my noble friend will not feel constrained in developing his points at whatever length he considers appropriate. After all, this Bill had no pre-legislative consultation, it was not consulted upon with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which have a vital interest in the provisions of the Bill, and it was programmed in the House of Commons, so very important parts of it were not considered in Committee or on Report there. Therefore, I think that we have a responsibility to examine it closely and I am very glad that my noble friend is doing so.

Lord McAvoy: My noble friend is absolutely right. I am not going to repeat all the points that have been made but shall leave it at that. However, I am certainly not going to allow attacks such as those to stay on the record without being refuted, despite the annoyance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

Lord Rooker: I shall make a brief response to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I was not intending to speak in this debate but I have three points to make, one of which he will not know. Until two years ago, I had served as a Minister for eight years on the Front Bench here, having come from the other place. I am on record in several places as saying-and I repeat it, although I know that it annoys people down the other end when I say it-that I was under greater scrutiny in my eight years here as a Minister than I ever was in the other place. I am quite happy to say that. It was because of the nature of the way this place works, whether Question Time, Select Committees, or the Floor of the House. There is no doubt about it. I speak only from my own experience. It takes a while to get used to this place, and it can be irritating.
	My other two brief points are these. I have been here on this Bill virtually every day, missing only a couple of hours one day, because I just happen to be interested. I do not agree with everything that is happening, as I will make clear in a moment. I have taken several Bills through this House, and in no Committee stage in which I was involved was I aware of ever being forced to say, or of agreeing to say, to the House, "I will take it away and think about it"; or of saying, "I will take that part of this argument away, think about it, and then promise to come back on Report". If you cannot make a change of rule, you come back openly, having looked at it in the department. Not once, as far as I know, in these debates in six days has any Minister ever said, "A good idea, or maybe a good idea, and we will take that away. There might be something we can do. It does not wreck the Bill, and it may add to things".
	Not once has that happened, and that is fairly unique, in my experience, I say in all humility.

Lord Bach: There was one occasion, probably in the two hours that the noble Lord was not here, when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, promised to take one item away, but the point that my noble friend makes is a good one.

Lord Rooker: I stand corrected then. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for that. As I say, I was here for all but two hours.
	The other point is that there was talk about the previous elections and, to be honest, on this issue concerning equality of constituencies I agree 100 per cent with the noble Lord, Lord Deben. There is nothing between us. If you are going to have one person one vote in a constituency-based system, you have to have the constituencies as near as damn it the same size. This was argued out years ago in the 1970s. I can remember there was an argument at a boundary inquiry. I even remember the late Denis Howell lecturing to us and saying, "Look, we might argue for smaller seats in the inner areas because our workload is greater, there is deprivation and there are all the other issues. On the other hand, you have to balance that against the massive distances that country members have to travel. It is different". What is important is the number people who are voting for one parliament.
	Frankly, if you look at the history and take the trouble to read or listen to John Curtice, you will see that Labour lost the 2005 election. I know the arithmetic says we came back with a majority of 66 but, if you look at all the facts and stats that came out, the writing was on the wall then simply because of the way the electoral system worked, the shape of the constituencies, and the slowness of the boundary inquiries. For that reason-it is also why I have no amendments to table to the second half of the Bill-I do not think there should be more than 500 Members of the other place. However, as I do not want to upset anybody by tabling such an amendment, this is my only opportunity to say so.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, following that welcome note from the unforgettable noble Lord, Lord Rooker-and I will be returning to what he said a moment ago about the fairness of equality of votes-I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who thought in some way I was irritated. Far from it-I just did not realise that he was getting up and I got up to speak at the same time, but I deferred to him because he wanted to interest us in what he had to contribute to this part of our discussions.
	I am tempted to speculate, as my noble friend Lord Deben invited me, on the mindset of noble Lords opposite. However, on this occasion I will try and resist temptation because it might take us down further highways and byways. I pause to observe that it might be difficult to do so because while on the one hand some noble Lords from the Labour Benches have indicated that the coalition agreement was to the disadvantage of the Liberal Democrats, on the other hand the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, indicated that was a threat to the Conservative Party and its view of constitutional reform.
	I also want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who thought that perhaps the pace of constitutional reform was too much. He was, of course, a member of a Government-and I pay huge tribute to them-who by this equivalent stage in their first term had had a referendum on their programme for devolution for Scotland and Wales, and then introduced legislation on freedom of information and some reform to this House, and passed the Human Rights Act which put forward proportional representation for the European elections. I just regret that they ran out of steam when it came to implementing their election manifesto promise on a referendum on the electoral system, or we might have been able to avoid some of these discussions.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that, in relation to the referendum and the legislation establishing the Scottish Parliament, there was not just pre-legislative debate; there was a whole constitutional convention which he and I were part of, which discussed the whole set-up, including the electoral system? It was discussed almost ad nauseam to get a consensus, not rushed and pushed through in this way.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde, said earlier, people have been talking about electoral reform for years and years. Indeed, it is less than 12 months since the Government which he supported brought forward their own proposals for a referendum on the alternative vote, so it has had plenty of exposure.
	It is important that we address the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, proposed some time ago and which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, this was part of the coalition agreement, and it is worth recalling that back in those days in May this year, it was very clear that no party had won the election. Indeed, given the instability in world markets at the time and the potential political instability which could be fed by that, my own party, the Liberal Democrats, came to an agreement with the Conservative Party to form a coalition Government to bring, I believe, much needed stability at a very crucial time.
	There were several issues in that agreement with regard to constitutional reform and the coalition's programme for government made a clear commitment to both the issues involved in this Bill-a referendum on the alternative vote and a boundary review to ensure a reduction of the House of Commons and equality of value of votes in constituencies. It was the Government's view that both issues should be tackled and implemented together, and we have never made any secret of that particular fact.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The noble and learned Lord must have been privy to some of these negotiations. Why was it in those negotiations that the Liberal Democrats did not demand from the Conservatives that the question in the referendum went wider than one system? Why did they not ask for a multiquestion to be placed on the referendum ballot paper?
	The book from Selsdon suggests that Gordon Brown offered it to the Liberal Democrats, so surely there was a basis on which they could have asked the same from the Conservative element in the coalition.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: It was the late Lord Butler who said, and no doubt he was not the first, that politics is the art of the possible. All I can say is that, casting one's mind back, agreeing to a referendum on the alternative vote was a huge move on the part of the Conservative Party. Indeed, together with other elements, it formed part of the basis for the coalition agreement. Speculating about other voting systems does not take us much further. This is what was agreed and this is what provided the basis of the stable Government which we formed in May of this year.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does he not understand that the Conservative element in the coalition would not have backed down if the Liberal Democrats had asked for it; it would not have blocked an agreement being made; and, in fact, they were walked over during the course of the negotiations?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am interested that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seems to have greater insight into what the Conservative Party would do than the Conservative Party itself seems to have.
	This was the basis of an agreement which has formed a stable Government for this country, and part of this agreement features in this Bill.

Lord Howarth of Newport: This is the third time the noble and learned Lord has put forward the claim that the coalition exists to provide stability for this country. Why, then, this Maoist approach to the British constitution?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As I do not recognise the allegation that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has made, I am not really in a position to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has identified that these two are linked together. He went on to argue that it was not the Liberal Democrats who got the better of the deal. He made the point that if there is a no vote in the referendum, the boundary proposals still go through. If there was a no vote-as I hope not, and our parties in the collation are agreed about what the outcome of the referendum should be-as a Liberal Democrat, I do not think I could ignore the view of the people. It would be wrong. If the people vote no, I expect that my colleagues will accept it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a point about fairness and the equality of constituencies. He said that that is a Conservative principle, and I am sure he would claim that it is not unique to the Conservative Party because the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, endorsed it, and I have no difficulty in accepting that as a principle. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord McNally has said on a number of occasions, this Bill is about fair votes and fair boundaries. It shows that the two are, in fact, linked. It shows how the two will be linked because it will shape the way in which the other place will be elected in 2015.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Will the noble and learned Lord also address the question of indecent haste and the fact that there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny? Is he aware, for example, that in Wales, the Welsh Assembly seats are based on 40 existing Welsh parliamentary seats and 20 proportional representation seats? Had they bothered to consult the Welsh Assembly, they would have been told of the substantial implications for the electoral system in Wales arising from the way in which the Welsh constituencies will be reduced from 40 to 30.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: That is similar to the changes that occurred in Scotland after the noble Lord's Government, which he supported, reduced the number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons from 72 to 59 when Scotland had 73 first past the post seats and 28 seats. I am not sure whether he objected when that legislation was brought before this House back in 2005 or 2006, but I hear his point. When we come to that part of the Bill, I have no doubt whatever that there will be discussions on the subject of Wales and the Isle of Wight.
	The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked whether a boundary review could be judicially reviewed. I remind the House that the question of hybridity was raised at the first stage of the proceedings on this Bill in this House and was rejected. Indeed, the position is that the Boundary Commissions can be judicially reviewed. It is our hope that they will not be and that there will be no grounds for doing so. Whether any challenge would delay a review would depend on the nature of the challenge, the time it took to be heard and whether any action had to be taken as a result. Clearly, we will have ample opportunity to debate issues that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, raised about the Isle of Wight, Ynys Môn and Cornwall-I have no doubt whatever, because I received the representations, too-when we debate the second Part of this Bill.

Lord Soley: I am very grateful for that answer. Can the Minister get the advice of the legal officers of the Government and write to me or put a copy in the Library, because I would like to know what the judgment is about this? It is clear that the Government have made a clear commitment to Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles and the Welsh constituency too, I understand. If that is the case, it is hard to see why the Isle of Wight and, I say perhaps less confidently, Cornwall, would not at least have a case. I would welcome hearing the Government's law officers' view.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I recall very clearly that when we discussed this in the debate on the Motion tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on hybridity, the very clear advice we got from the Clerk was that there was no issue of hybridity, which is the other side of the same coin to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, was referring.

Lord Howarth of Newport: I appreciate the Minister's courtesy to me and to the House as a whole. He just said that he personally believes in the principle of numerical equality between constituencies. As the former Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland, does he now hold that that principle ought to apply to Orkney and Shetland and that they should be subordinated to it?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: For good reasons, which the Bill addresses, there are exceptions. There are only two, and I do not want to take up the time of the House, although we will, no doubt, have plenty of opportunity at a later stage to explain why in these two limited cases, which by any stretch of anyone's imagination are different from any other part of the United Kingdom, an exception has to be made. Two out of 600 does not really depart from the principle of fairness that I illustrated.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I would not want the Minister to mislead the House. It is not just two constituencies. The area provision also excludes the constituency presently represented by Mr Charles Kennedy. Is that not correct?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: That is not correct. The relationship between the area provision and the constituency represented by my right honourable friend Charles Kennedy is that he currently represents the largest area in the United Kingdom. The area referred to in Part 2 is just slightly larger. It is not to preserve a particular constituency. Indeed, if one thinks about it logically, if you start at the top and come down, it would eat into his present constituency anyway. It is not an automatic read-across. The noble Lord has just got it wrong on that point.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Can the Minister clarify something very simple for me? Perhaps I misunderstood. Is he saying that one judicial review in one part of the United Kingdom could block the boundary changes that trigger the introduction of AV? Is that exactly what he is saying? Can we have that clarified?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I shall repeat what I said. I said that the Boundary Commissions could be judicially reviewed. Of course, I hope that that does not happen and that there will be no such a challenge. Whether any challenge would lead to a delay would depend on the nature of the challenge and the time it took for it to be heard. I remind the House of the provisions in the next Part of the Bill at Clause 10(3):
	"A Boundary Commission shall submit reports under subsection (1) above periodically ... before 1st October 2013".
	We hope that that will find favour with the House and will be in the statute to which the Boundary Commissions will have to adhere.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The Minister said that the boundary commissions could be reviewed. Can I isolate within that Boundary Commission review whether a judicial review within one particular part of the country will in itself lead to this blockage of the introduction of AV that is being referred to?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I think I also said in my response earlier that the length of any possible delay would depend upon whether action needed to be taken as a consequence of that ruling and whether there was a knock-on. I also indicated that as the Bill stands the Boundary Commission review would have to report by 1 October 2013, and that is what we wish to put into statute.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: Just before we leave the point about those special exemptions to which the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and others have referred, in order to avoid the need for judicial reviews later on or for discussion when we get to later parts of this Bill, could the Minister isolate for us those constituencies that are in dispute? Mr Andrew Turner from the Isle of Wight has written to each of us, as has the leader of Cornwall Council, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned Ynys Môn. If just those three examples are as narrow as that, would it not be sensible between now and Report, in the spirit mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Rooker, earlier, for the officials of the noble and learned Lord's department to meet representatives from those areas to see whether further exemptions could be made?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord is right to identify the ones he has. The others were, I think, incorporated into an amendment that was moved in the other place and that related to some of the highlands seats and Argyll and Bute. I hear what he says. I can assure him that I have already met elected Members from Cornwall as well as elected Members from the highlands and islands of Scotland on these issues. We are certainly alive to the issues that he has raised, and I have no doubt that we will have plenty of opportunity to debate them in due course when we return in the new year.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The Minister said that I am just plain wrong. Can he therefore explain the purpose of new paragraph 4(2) in substitute Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act:
	"A constituency does not have to comply with rule 2(1)(a) if ... it has an area of more than 12,000 square kilometres".
	Paragraph 2(1)(a) provides, of course, that it need be,
	"no less than 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota".
	My understanding of that is that in the highlands at least one constituency, if not the existing constituency of his right honourable friend, would be exempt from that rule, and on previous voting patterns it is likely that it would be a Liberal Democrat constituency.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I think the noble Lord specifically said that it would be the constituency of my right honourable friend, but in fact that is wrong. Obviously parts of the Highlands and Islands, and perhaps even parts of mid-Wales, raise the potential for large areas to be covered. It would be wrong for us to second guess how the Boundary Commission will apply that. I can certainly assure him that although as a party we have had a consistency good record in the Highlands and Islands, we never take that for granted, and I would certainly not presume from this Dispatch Box that any resulting seat would be a Liberal Democrat seat. However, we would work hard to win it.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The point I was making was that the noble Lord said that he agreed with his noble friend Lord Deben that the prime consideration should be the number of electors: that that was supreme. The Bill exempts Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. Now there is another exemption, is there not?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Yes, but as I indicated earlier, I do not think that that detracts from the fundamental principle because it reflects common sense on the areas. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to complain if we had not done something similar. Let us hear from a fresh voice.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: The noble Lord said that there were good reasons for these exemptions. Given that the Bill says that a constituency does not have to comply if it covers an area of more than 12,000 square kilometres, can the noble Lord, in advance of the debate at a future time, place a letter in the Library of the House of Lords detailing the criteria on which these decisions were made so that we can be better informed when it comes to that debate?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am sure that they are very similar to the criteria which the previous Labour Government adopted when they gave Orkney and Shetland separate seats in the Scottish Parliament, and did so for similar reasons. His having been a member of that Government, I am sure that the noble Lord will be well aware of those criteria. However, I have no doubt that we will come back to this.
	I shall conclude where we came in by indicating that Amendments 45 and 46A would separate the two issues. The first amendment moved by the noble Lord would do this by removing the stipulation that the alternative vote provisions are brought in only after the draft Order in Council is laid, and the second amendment would do this by removing the provision that requires the alternative vote provisions to be brought into force on the same day. It does not actually break the linkage as it would leave the requirement that the order bringing the boundaries provisions into force must have been laid first, although that would not necessarily be on the same day. It may be the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to put the amendments together.

Lord Bach: Why is there a linkage at all between these two sides if it is not part of a political deal?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I have indicated that the coalition programme for government makes a clear commitment to both issues, and it is the Government's view that the issues are linked, particularly in terms of how the House of Commons will be shaped when it is reconstituted after the election in 2015. As my noble friend Lord McNally has said on many occasions, the linkage is fair votes and fair boundaries. The Government are committed to both provisions if a yes vote is carried in the referendum. The Government therefore wish to see both provisions, if the yes vote is carried, to come into effect in time for the next general election. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Soley: The Minister has been quite helpful on some of these points. I agree that the Boundary Commission can be judicially reviewed and I accept that the House decided that this is not a hybrid Bill. What I am interested in is that when I asked him about the Isle of Wight, on which I will focus in relation to the amendment that we are discussing, a challenge under this current amendment would prevent the system going forward in the way the Bill envisages; so the question whether there can be a legal challenge is crucial.
	Let us put Cornwall to one side for a moment because I am not familiar enough with its case. I know the area of the Western Isles rather well, but I do not know Orkney and Shetland. However, I do know that those two areas have similar problems to the problem faced by the constituency of the Member for the Isle of Wight, who has argued the case very strongly in the House of Commons. If there is a similar problem, there are the conditions for a possible legal challenge. Indeed, I think the Minister used the phrase "it is common sense" when he said that the two Scottish seats are very different. I am a great believer in common sense, but I have to say that it can get you into deep trouble when you go into a court of law.
	This goes back to a point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker that there is a case for the Government to be more willing to compromise on this Bill and at least to offer to investigate. I would very much like to know, and I am sure that councillors on the Isle of Wight would love to know, the government law officers' view on whether a legal challenge could be mounted because there was no Boundary Commission review of the Isle of Wight. It seems at least possible, so it would be good if we could have the lawyers' views on this.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I hesitate to say because, although I am only seven or eight months into office, one of the cardinal rules for a law officer is not to expose what your advice to the Government is. Indeed, you do not even disclose whether advice has been given. However, I will reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has said and not necessarily answer his question about advice but perhaps revisit the advice that was given to the House by the Clerks when the particular issue of hybridity was looked at.

Lord Bach: On another subject, which I asked the noble Lord about in my contribution, does he agree that even if, by way of exaggeration as an example, 99 per cent of the population were to vote in favour of changing the Westminster voting system to this type of AV, that change would not come about if the boundary changes were not made? How can he seek to justify that?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I will not justify that particular point, but I will draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Boundary Commission report is due, as I have already said on two or three occasions during these exchanges, on 1 October 2013. There will be time to debate the fixed-term Parliament Bill, but the assumption is that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday in May 2015. Therefore there will be ample time for both orders to be laid and implemented together, assuming of course that there is a yes vote. If it is a no vote, no time is attached to bringing forward an order to repeal the relevant sections of the Bill, or the Act as it will be by then.
	I reiterate that if the Boundary Commission report is brought forward by 1 October 2013, there will be ample time. Obviously this is also important for electoral administrators and the political parties, and it would ensure that the next general election would be fought both within the boundaries that would then be implemented by order and under the alternative vote system.

Lord Bach: If the constituency changes do not go ahead for any reason, AV cannot take place. However, if 99 per cent of the people have voted for AV, is that not unfair?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Ninety-nine per cent of the people voting for AV, much as I would like to see that, is hypothetical. It is also purely hypothetical that the boundary changes will not go ahead either.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the Minister stood up to speak 25 minutes ago and he has been most courteous in his responses to the many interventions. He said rather wryly that it seemed to have been a long time since I stood up to move the amendments in my name. I did not manage to speak for as long as he did. I do not think that I spoke for more than 10 minutes, and I was trying to make a substantive case, on which we have had a good debate.
	However, I think that the debate was thrown off course at one point by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whom we all greatly admire. The noble Lord made a partisan attack on ex-Members of the House of Commons on this side of the Committee in a speech made by an ex-Member of the other House. I do not think that we progress best in this House by swapping partisan insults of that kind. Perhaps this should be a warning to us to keep them to a minimum. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I was never a Member of the House of Commons and so I have not adapted to the kind of things that I understand from this debate go on there.
	It is important to get away from the partisan, and I do so, as part of my concluding remarks, by referring to the non-partisan committee of this House- the Constitution Committee-which examined the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and had many prominent Conservatives in its ranks, including the noble Lords, Lord Norton, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Renton of Mount Harry. It said:
	"In general, we regard it as a matter of principle that proposals for major constitutional reform should be subject to prior public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We recognise that there may exceptionally be good reasons for departing from this principle, but the perils of doing so are well illustrated in the present Bill. The case for proceeding rapidly with one Part of this Bill is far stronger than for the other".
	In other words, the non-partisan examination of the buckle in the Bill said that it should not be there. However, it is there-the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was commendably frank about this-and it is there for purely political reasons. Therefore it is right that we in this House, with our responsibilities to the constitution as a whole, should examine whether those reasons are convincing.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was a little less convincing when he tried to explain the reasons for it being there when he said, "Of course, if the AV referendum is lost I would not want to push ahead with it". With great respect, that is not the point that we on this side of the House are seeking to make. Our point is different: it is that the two sets of proposals are not treated the same. Of course, if the AV referendum is lost, noble Lords should not proceed with an AV proposal, but there is no such conditionality on the proposals for constituency and boundary changes-they are to go ahead nevertheless.
	Before the House has even started to examine these proposals-and before the Boundary Commission has started on the extremely onerous, some people believe impracticable, task it is being set-the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, says that the boundary changes and the change in the number of MPs will go ahead. If they do not go ahead-and all kinds of happenstance could prevent them from going ahead-neither will AV. As my noble friend Lord Bach points out, AV could be prevented from going through even though it had the overwhelming support of the British people. That cannot be right.
	I do not propose to force this issue to a Division today. I hope Ministers will think carefully about the situations, that wiser counsels will prevail, and that even now they will find a way of separating the two bits of the Bill so that each can be taken on its merits. I withdraw the amendment hoping that Christmas cheer will suffuse the Government's approach when next we turn to these matters on 10 January.
	Amendment 45 withdrawn.
	House resumed.

Severe Winter Weather
	 — 
	Statement

Earl Attlee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows.
	"Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on the continuing severe weather. We are facing exceptional conditions. It looks set to be the coldest December since 1910, with average temperatures four to five degrees below the norm for December. Many areas have had record low temperatures and snowfall has been the most widespread since 1981. The forecast is for continued severe cold and further snowfall through the coming week and over Christmas and the new year.
	Transport services have suffered extensive disruption in the last few days and there is a likelihood of further disruption through this week. I recognise that this is particularly stressful just a few days ahead of the Christmas break and I understand the frustration of those who are trying to get away or, indeed, are trying to get home.
	Transport services were also disrupted in the first spell of winter weather that came unusually early at the end of November. That period tested the systems which, in some cases, had performed so poorly earlier this year. The then Government asked David Quarmby, chairman of the RAC Foundation and a former chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, to conduct a review of winter resilience. His initial report was issued in July and a final report was published in October. It made 28 recommendations, some of them directed at central government, some at local government and some at transport operators. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented, although some will necessarily take longer.
	On 2 December, I asked David Quarmby, in the light of the weather conditions we were then experiencing, to conduct an audit of the implementation of his recommendations and to make any further observations he felt necessary. This is an independent report and I understand that David Quarmby intends to publish it tomorrow.
	One of the principal recommendations of the first Quarmby report concerned salt: levels of stocks that local authorities should hold, dosage rates for optimum use of stocks and the acquisition of a strategic stockpile by central government. Local authorities went into this period with significantly better salt stocks than last winter and the Highways Agency, on the Government's behalf, had purchased 300,000 tonnes of salt to form a strategic stockpile, of which over 150,000 tonnes is already at UK ports with the remainder scheduled for delivery through December and early January.
	Over the last few days, highway authorities across England have been focused on delivering their planned salting and snow clearance to keep their local strategic road networks open. Together they had ready some 1.25 million tonnes of salt at the start of the winter. As honourable Members would expect, salt usage has been significantly above the norm for this time of year and so my department decided two weeks ago to procure, as a precautionary measure, up to an additional 250,000 tonnes of salt to replenish the strategic stockpile as salt is released to local authorities. Last Friday, DfT offered 30,000 tonnes from the strategic stockpile to local authorities to provide reassurance over the holiday period. That allocation has been taken up and will be delivered over the next few days.
	The strategic road network inevitably suffered severe disruption in the wake of heavy snowfall this weekend, but recovered reasonably rapidly and, with isolated exceptions, has operated effectively since Saturday afternoon.
	Similarly, heavy snow and the formation of ice at very low temperatures caused some disruption on rail networks on Friday and Saturday. But the rail industry has pulled together to keep essential services running, using special timetables where necessary, and I am pleased to report that commuter services into main conurbations this morning are close to normal. Transport for London has successfully followed its winter weather plans and has been able to run a near-normal service across its network. However, issues with Eurostar are ongoing and have been well reported today, including the impacts of very severe weather conditions in France.
	Disruption due to weather conditions of this extremity is inevitable. The measure of resilience is the speed of recovery of the networks from such events. On this measure, the strategic road network and the rail network have performed broadly satisfactorily, having regard to the exceptional circumstances. The experience at airports, and Heathrow in particular, has however been different. Conditions have been difficult across north- west Europe, with Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol all struggling to cope at times. This afternoon it has been reported that Brussels airport will close until Wednesday because of a lack of de-icer. But yesterday's whole-day virtual closure at Heathrow, coupled with continued substantially reduced capacity, presents a very real challenge from which the system will struggle to recover quickly.
	I have spoken this morning to BAA and BA, its principal user. I am clear that BA made the right call on Saturday to cancel its flights in anticipation of the closure of the airport. Had it not done so, the scenes in the terminals on Saturday night that we witnessed on our TV screens could have been much worse.
	Heathrow operates at normal times at some 98 per cent of full capacity, so when there is disruption caused by snow, or the need repeatedly to close runways or taxiways for de-icing, capacity is inevitably lost and a backlog builds up. There is still a large amount of work to be done to restore Heathrow to full capacity, and further snow and severe icing are anticipated over the next few days.
	The immediate focus at Heathrow must be on maximising the number of flights with the available infrastructure. In order for this to be done, I have agreed with BAA this morning a relaxation of restrictions on night flights for the next four days. Operating hours will be extended until 1am and arrivals for repatriation flights will be allowed through the night. None the less, BAA advises that, with further severe weather forecast, Heathrow is likely to operate at reduced capacity until Christmas.
	Conditions in the terminals overnight on Saturday were very difficult, with some 2,000 passengers stranded. Once the airport has returned to normal operation, my officials will work with BAA to understand how this situation arose and what it plans to change to ensure that we do not experience a repeat. It is clear from my discussions this morning that some preliminary conclusions have already been drawn.
	We recognise that the cost, both economic and social, of this level of disruption can be very great. Winters such as this year's and last year's have been rare in modern Britain, but we need to consider whether we are now seeing a step change in our weather that might justify investment in equipment and technologies to reduce the impact of severe temperature and heavy snowfall. I will assess advice on this subject from the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, and we will work with transport operators to examine the business case in each sector for increased investment in winter resilience where that makes sense, recognising always that spending more on winter preparedness inevitably means that there will be less to spend on other priorities.
	This is not just about making sure that people can travel and goods are delivered. Disrupted transport links, combined with cold weather, increasingly impact on other essential services. In particular, they threaten the most vulnerable in our communities. To help those most in need to stay warm in the coldest parts of the country, the Government have so far this winter paid out some £355 million in cold weather payments through an estimated 14.2 million payments to affected households. In addition, winter fuel payments for pensioners have been protected at the higher rate for this winter, with 12.9 million payments made to those older people who meet the qualifying conditions. We have also taken precautionary steps to ensure that the health services are well prepared, with local plans in place to deal with the extra demands that this type of weather brings.
	Despite these steps, weather of this severity can cause unexpected problems for many people, including those who would not normally see themselves as vulnerable but who might be in serious difficulty if their boiler breaks down or they cannot get to the chemist to collect their medication. The Local Government Association will therefore work closely with local authorities in England, with support from the Government, to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place across the country. Individual local authorities will publicise information locally on how to access these advice services ahead of the Christmas holiday period.
	Severe weather poses significant challenges to the energy supply industry. Difficult driving conditions have affected fuel oil and coal suppliers' ability to make deliveries, particularly to more remote areas away from the strategic road network. This has resulted in delivery backlogs which suppliers have been working hard, in difficult conditions, to reduce.
	Distributors are doing all they can to prioritise deliveries to vulnerable customers and those running short of fuel. Working with the Government, the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers has issued a code of practice to its members to help them prioritise orders to those most in need and to alert local authorities when they are aware of a risk that potentially vulnerable households will run short of heating oil.
	The severe weather has also led to a very high forecast of demand for gas, expected to be more than 26 per cent above the normal for this time of year. As a result, the National Grid yesterday issued a gas balancing alert to provide a signal to the market to bring on additional supplies and reduce demand from large users on interruptible contracts. There is no reason to expect any disruption to domestic or commercial customers unless they have interruptible contracts in place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has today issued a Written Statement providing more information on this issue.
	Nationally, we will continue to do whatever is necessary to support essential services and to provide advice to businesses and householders on steps they can take to help themselves and others. For example, we have published a snow code to give common-sense advice to householders and businesses to help them safely clear snow and ice from pavements and public spaces without fear of legal action. As an emergency measure, we have relaxed the enforcement of EU drivers' hours and working-time rules to mitigate the effect of the severe weather on critical parts of the supply chain that have been badly hit by the weather. We have published guidance for local highway authorities on the range of actions that can be taken to ensure optimum use of salt stocks. Over the next few days, we will publish updated technical advice based on the latest research findings, so that all authorities can adopt best practice. We have also confirmed to farmers that they can use red diesel in tractors and other equipment to help salt and clear snow from public roads during the extreme weather.
	We are not yet through this period of severe weather. My priority remains working with the transport industries to return to normal as fast as the continued freezing temperatures this week permit and, with ministerial colleagues and officials from other departments, with whom I have been in contact daily since Friday, to continue to monitor the situation, assess the risk of further disruption and take whatever action is needed. These arrangements will continue in place for as long as necessary through the holiday period. I can assure the House that, wherever government action can help to ease the impact of severe weather or mitigate its effects, we will not hesitate to take such action. I commend the Statement to the House."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I think that the House will have gained exactly the same impression as was gained on that earlier occasion; namely, that there is great complacency in the Statement in the face of the appalling suffering which so many of the travelling public have endured over this weekend, whether they have been trapped on railway stations without information as to when trains might arrive or caught up in traffic jams without any ability to understand when they might have a chance of escaping. More particularly, the Statement has failed to explain why, at airports, scandalously low levels of information have been given to the travelling public. I thought that the whole point of privatising many of these transport assets was that privatised companies cared about their consumers. There was not much care about consumers over this past weekend, when the advice given to individuals consisted of one telephone number which was inevitably jammed for the whole time that people were trying to get through. There was no alternative strategy for anyone to take.
	This will not do. The noble Earl says that his right honourable friend had a meeting with transport bosses today. There is no suggestion that there was any dressing down done about these failures over the weekend; instead, there was a meeting, on which they met on, I suppose, cordial terms to talk about the difficulties that the transport system has suffered. This is not good enough in circumstances where so many people have suffered so much.
	Regarding airports, particularly London Heathrow, it is also important that we protect our national reputation. Whether we like it or not, London Heathrow is a gateway to much of the world and a lot of people get their experience of Britain from Heathrow. Consequently, the chaos over this last weekend has produced real difficulties and I would have expected the Government to have responded in rather more forthright terms than the Statement has suggested.
	The noble Earl referred to the Quarmby report. He knows that in the summer that report produced 28 recommendations. He indicated in the Statement that only a certain number of these recommendations have been carried through. We will be able to see, with the full publication of the report, just where negligence has occurred. It will not do for the noble Earl to indicate that the Government had no warning of this. We did learn from last winter; that is why the Quarmby inquiry was set up. The report was presented in good time-by July of this year. Why, therefore, have the Government not taken more forthright actions?
	There are several points that specialists in the field have also indicated. I would have thought Ministers would have expected this sort of expertise and advice to be available to them in the department and acted upon. What is this nonsense about lorries jack-knifing in the middle lanes of motorways and blocking the whole motorway? Why on earth has it not been recognised that, in circumstances such as the very difficult travel conditions this weekend, some restrictions should have been put, as the AA recommended, upon the movement of lorries so that they stayed only in the inside lane? I recognise the disadvantages and inconvenience to lorry drivers, but, my goodness, that is as nothing to the blocking of the whole M25 or parts of the M40 by jack-knifed lorries.
	Why is it, with our rail system, that information is not readily available to customers? You can have railway lines which are only six miles apart and at the station where you ask the question and at which they are experiencing delays on the line, they have no idea whether it would make sense to get across to the other line, which might be running a fairly good service. The system does not know, or the people are not equipped to deliver the service they should. It is a reflection of the very limited resources that have been put into customer care and that is why, in these circumstances where great difficulty occurs, it is the passenger who suffers.
	Finally, it was timely, this weekend, that a Member of Parliament and close friend of the Prime Minister should have indulged in a little light relief on the virtues of chaos theory. I am talking about the leading party in the Government, the Conservative Party. He said something like, "We do not think much to planning in our party, we think that planning can be overemphasised and it might be that a certain amount of chaos theory should obtain". Well, no one in the coalition should be preaching chaos theory regarding transport this weekend. A bit of thought by Ministers, a bit of planning, and some of the difficulties that our fellow countrymen and others have faced might have been minimised.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's exciting response to my Statement. There is no complacency on the part of the Government; we are acutely aware of the challenges. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is giving clear and strategic leadership to all concerned. He does not give a dressing down to operators; he gives encouragement and leadership. The noble Lord made much of the difficulties of communicating in the current situation. Yes, of course there is disappointment, but there are a lot of people affected and it is a very obscure situation.
	The noble Lord is right to say how important Heathrow is to the country and, indeed, to the world. One of the problems at Heathrow is clearing the aircraft stands of snow when those aircraft stands are occupied by aircraft. If there is no aircraft in the aircraft stand, it can be cleared pretty quickly, but if there is an aircraft there, the process is much slower because we cannot risk damaging the aircraft.
	The noble Lord suggests restrictions on HGV operators and drivers. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all commercial vehicle drivers who work so hard in very difficult conditions to keep our shops and businesses supplied.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. I stress how important it is to take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. The problem that we suffer is a lack of communication. To anybody who listened to the Radio 4 interviews with passengers at Heathrow and Gatwick, the information that was repeatedly conveyed was that none of them knew what was going on.
	A few weeks ago, at the beginning of the month, we had similar snowfall and people are really tired of not knowing how our rail network is working in this country. At Victoria Station, it was obvious that none of the indicators was working and the announcements were almost impossible to decipher. Whenever one got the idea that a train was leaving, one jumped into that train, sat for half an hour and was then told that the train was no longer going. One moved on to another train, only to be told that the driver was no longer available. One then moved on to another train where they said it would be another half an hour. By the time one gets home, it has taken three or three and a half hours to travel a distance of 15 miles.
	This just will not do. It is time that those in authority provided adequate information to those who use services. That has not happened at Heathrow, it does not happen at many of our stations and it is about time that this matter is put right.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. Ministers were not happy about the situation on communicating the transport opportunities to people two weeks ago. It is inconceivable that these problems will not be considered in the new year.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In addition to talking to BAA, will Ministers also talk to the airline operators about the need for them to inform their customers and to ensure, together with BAA and other airport operators, that every attention is paid to the needs of people who may, unfortunately, be stranded.
	Secondly, will the Government look again at stopping the Warm Front programme applications? While it is certainly true, as the Statement made clear, that fuel payments have been made, the programme of insulating homes will be slowed. It is obviously too late, in any event, to make a difference this winter, but given what has happened in the past couple of years, does the Minister agree that it might be necessary to look again at that decision in order that there should not be an hiatus in the insulation programme?
	Thirdly, on the steps taken by the health service and local authorities, does the Minister agree that it might be desirable to look at whether extra resources might be needed, in certain parts of the country, in order for the health service to cope with the additional demands and pressures that might arise and, indeed, for something like the Bellwin rules-which, I understand, are to be abolished under the new dispensation-to be looked at in relation to local authorities?
	Finally, on a more domestic concern, will the Minister look at conditions within this House and consider whether it is desirable to turn the heating off on a Friday, leaving this place to be extremely cold for the staff and your Lordships on a Monday?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I think I mentioned in my Statement-I apologise if the Statement does not say it-that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with Willie Walsh at BA and I expect that Ministers or senior officials will have talked to leaders of other airlines to work out a way forward in order to minimise the effect on travelling passengers.
	The noble Lord talked about the Warm Front scheme. It is slightly outside the scope of the Statement, but I appreciate the current difficulties of houses being very cold. We are experiencing it a little in your Lordships' House. It is a little colder than normal. Fortunately, I am not responsible for the conditions inside your Lordships' House, but I always take the precaution of putting on extra clothes on a Monday morning.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the contribution from the Front Bench opposite was particularly ludicrous in what could become an extremely serious situation? To try to make political capital out of that at this time does no service to the responsibility that people have in this House. The idea that somehow you can guarantee to keep everything running whatever the weather is wrong. I sat on a plane in Zurich airport for eight hours while they tried to de-ice it. It iced up again and then they de-iced it and within a quarter of an hour the pilot came back and said, "Our time is up and we will have to abandon the flight altogether". It is impossible to guard against that.
	The seriousness of the Statement that my noble friend repeated is in the weather forecast going forward. There are a lot of very frightened people in this country now, in rural areas and other areas as well. There are worries about supplies of fuel oil, petrol and heating generally, and breakdowns in electricity substations are the sort of problem that can come from very severe weather. The country is entitled to expect from this House cohesive action together; consideration as to how we can tackle what may be some very serious problems in the weeks ahead.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's point. He asked what could be done. The short answer is that my right honourable friend could not do much more. The weather conditions that we are experiencing are unprecedented. We have not had such a cold December since 1910.
	My noble friend mentioned fuel oil supplies. They should be okay. Backlogs are mounting up of several days and we are monitoring the situation carefully. My right honourable friend has already relaxed the drivers' hours regulations for drivers moving essential supplies in order to help reduce the backlog.

Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I detect a deep sense of complacency-not on the Minister's part but running throughout the Government. While we have heard a lot of excuses, we have not heard any plans or action programmes for dealing with the matter. Are there any steps to set out a list of priority users? Has the OFT been alerted to ensure that oil suppliers do not profiteer in the current circumstances? Can we be assured that the emergency services will not have to compete with other users of oil? Has COBRA met? What plans is it offering to the various people who will be affected? Will the Minister say when we will get some real action rather than soft words?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I repeat: there is no complacency in Her Majesty's Government. One of the things that we need to avoid is getting out a long screwdriver and sticking it in places where it would be unhelpful.
	The noble Lord asked some important questions about fuel supplies for emergency services. I would be very surprised if the emergency services were not careful to ensure that their fuel stocks never go below a certain level so that they do not have to go into the market at precisely the wrong time, which is right now, when we need to avoid panic buying.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the hospitals up and down the country that are snowbound, such as Cardiff, Hexham and Goole, have appealed to the public for the use of 4x4s to get patients and staff to and from hospital? If there is an appeal, people respond. Far more important is the problem of low blood supplies. Will the Minister pass on to his colleagues in the Department of Health the need to tell people where they can give blood? In the press there have been notifications that blood stocks are dangerously low, but there is nothing about where people can go in difficult snowbound areas to give blood. Many people will do that. Type O negative is particularly important.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a couple of important points. There is a large population of 4x4 vehicles. Some people call them Chelsea tractors. Now they can be useful to society and people can volunteer to help local voluntary groups to move people who cannot otherwise move around. Although the strategic road network is pretty well completely clear, the side roads are not clear.
	The noble Baroness mentioned blood supplies. I am not aware of the current situation with blood supplies, but I will pass her comments on to my noble friend Lord Howe. As for heating supplies, I understand that most hospitals run on gas and only a few use oil. I imagine that they would be very careful not to run their stocks down too much at this time of year.

Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, does the Minister agree that now would be an appropriate time to pay tribute to the dedication of all those working in the National Health Service who have been turning up to work, such as managers, clinicians, nurses, ambulance drivers, porters-the whole lot? They have been keeping hospitals open. They have enabled the sick to come in and have kept people in who could not go home. The National Health Service has risen brilliantly to the challenge. I declare an interest as chairman of the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. It is time for the NHS to receive the praise that it deserves.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend and would like to pay tribute to all NHS workers who make that big struggle to get into work despite the conditions. That applies to everyone who takes the difficult option of struggling to get to work rather than the easy option of sitting at home and doing nothing.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister referred to supplies of salt. Does he accept that many of the pavements in London-and I am sure elsewhere-are extremely slippery. They were this morning. The danger is that the health service will be burdened by even more people who slip and break their arms and legs. Is it not more economic to put more salt on pavements-or in some cases put some salt on pavements-rather than have ambulances and the health service having to bear the burden of what seems to be a niggardly approach to distributing the salt?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, there is not a niggardly approach to distributing the salt. As for pavements, local people can clear them. The Statement that I repeated referred to the fact that people can clear the pavement if they want to. But the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of increased levels of injury through slipping. It is a big problem. A fall for people in their later years can be very serious indeed.

Lord Patel: My Lords, as someone who has had two and an half feet of snow, and dug myself out last night to get down the hill to get here, I know the problem of moving around. If the Minister believes in the science of climate change and the ability to predict what future winters over the next decade or even century will be like, how come the science of meteorology cannot tell me what the weather will be like two weeks from now?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the whole population complains about the art of weather forecasting.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Does my noble friend agree that winter tyres are a sensible thing to have on vehicles? I shall be disappointed if he does not. Has my noble friend's department considered legislating for the use of winter tyres, as they do in Scandinavia? Is he satisfied by the supply of winter tyres? I have heard anecdotally in central Scotland that there is a now a two-month waiting list.

Earl Attlee: My noble friend raised the interesting point of winter tyres. They are effective, but it is a personal choice and it would be peculiar for the Government to take any steps to mandate them. Suppliers of essential services in remote rural areas might want to consider stocking some vehicles with winter tyres, but it is entirely a matter for them. I suspect the capital cost of winter tyres rarely justifies the investment.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the noble Earl ask his ministerial colleagues to look very carefully at the question of winter fuel payments, particularly for the disabled and the elderly? What they are getting at the moment is pretty minimal, bearing in mind the incredibly low temperatures.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am sure that my ministerial colleagues are carefully considering whether the payments are at the right level, but it is not a matter for me to comment on.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the local authorities are accusing the Government of profiteering on selling salt to them at a time when local authorities' budgets are being severely cut and, certainly in some areas, local authorities are forced to salt roads only where there is a steep hill and not on the flat? How can the Government claim that the situation is under control when local authorities do not have the money to buy salt or to spread it?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, but he needs to understand that local authorities should regard central government as a supplier of last resort.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I flew down this morning from Glasgow Airport to London City Airport, and I pay tribute to the people both at Glasgow and at London City Airport who made that journey, although slightly delayed, a successful one. They did so for many hundreds of people this morning from Scotland to London. As I passed through Glasgow Airport this morning, it was very clear to me just how important Heathrow Airport is to the travel plans, whether for family reunions or business or holidays, of many of my fellow west of Scotland citizens at this time of year. I heard the Minister, in repeating the Statement made in the other place, pray in aid the statistic that Heathrow is used to 98 per cent of its capacity as a reason for the fragility of that environment-and I agree with him. As I understand it, the Government have no plans to increase the capacity of Heathrow, so they must have strategic plans to reduce its usage. Are those going to be part of the discussions that take place between his right honourable friend Philip Hammond, the Minister, BAA and the operators out of Heathrow? If they are not, we are going to face this problem repeatedly every time it snows, and that airport will be closed.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, yet again a noble Lord rightly raises the importance of Heathrow Airport and the fact that most of the time it is running at 98 per cent efficiency, along with the fact that we are not going to have a third runway at Heathrow. What we will do is to make Heathrow Airport more effective and more efficient.

Lord Snape: My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to those staff, many of them manual workers and low paid workers, right across the transport industries, who have spent the past week or so working in extremely inclement weather to try to maintain some sort of service. To follow on from the point made by his noble friend Lord Dholakia, does he agree that the most irritating aspect of the delay and dislocation is not the fact that things go wrong, because we can all accept the case that they do, but the lack of information to passengers or customers, or whatever the industry likes to call them? Will he accept that industries such as the railway industry-I suspect that this is true of the aviation industry, too-whether publicly or privately owned, are overmanaged and undersupervised? The largely junior staff who have to face the ire of the public are no wiser about what is going on than the people concerned. Would he knock a few heads together to ensure that senior managers are there to make decisions and to face the travelling public when things go wrong?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, first, the noble Lord talked about manual workers working in the cold. These people are working outside in absolutely freezing conditions to keep transport equipment working, and I think we should all be very grateful to them. Yet again, another noble Lord has raised the issue of the lack of information about what transport services can do. Ministers are acutely aware of this problem; we are not happy about it. I also stress the point that we must not interfere at the moment but, when it is all over, we will be talking very closely with the transport industry to see what can be done in future so that passengers know what can be done.

Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, the Minister said that his colleague had met the British Airports Authority today, and he discussed the issue of Heathrow Airport. It seems to many noble Lords strange that Heathrow seems able to cope much less well with the severe conditions than other London airports. As my noble friend said, that was the case with Stansted Airport from Scotland, as opposed to the situation at Heathrow, which had only one runway still operating. Will the Minister press the BAA to ensure that additional resources are made available and that Heathrow Airport itself, a very profitable organisation, is forced to ensure that it can cope better in future? Will he address the issue not just of information to passengers who are stranded but of facilities available to them? Some passengers have been sleeping for three or four nights on cold floors. The airline operators or BAA must make some facility available, be it blankets or pillows or whatever, so that people who have nowhere to go will be properly looked after in the short term.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point, but the conditions at Heathrow at the weekend were much more severe than those normally encountered. Advice from industry is that the volume of snowfall encountered on Saturday-approximately 10 to 12 centimetres in little more than an hour-would have closed any airport. As for government action for the future, airport operators have a great incentive themselves to invest in the necessary equipment to keep their airports open, because their daily losses at Heathrow from not being able to operate properly are millions of pounds.

NHS: Global Health
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Tabled by Lord Crisp
	To ask Her Majesty's Government how they will ensure that the subject of global health is included in the education of all health professionals.

Lord Crisp: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to open this debate. I am delighted to see how many noble Lords have decided to take part in it, and I know that a number of others, for reasons of snow and the fact that we already had a large list, have decided not to take part. There is a lot of interest in this subject, and it is something on which there is a great deal of agreement both in your Lordships' House and outside. That agreement is partly the point of the debate, because what we need now is some action.
	Professional education in the 20th century has done a wonderful job, not least in the United Kingdom. Life expectancy in the world as a whole has doubled in the century, but the outside world has changed, which means that there is a need for a change in education. There is a broad consensus on what needs to happen, and we can see it happening in many of our leading schools already. As Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, has put it:
	"health professionals today are not adequately prepared to address the present and coming health challenges-aging populations, chronic diseases, cultural diversity and higher public expectations".
	It is, if you like, the necessary move from a purely doctor and hospital-based model to something much more diverse and local, more community and more person-based. That was a goal of the last Government and I know that it is a goal of this Government. The difficulty as always is to make it happen.
	This Question is about global health and the emerging new discipline of global health. Let me explain why I think it is relevant here. I am talking about global health, not international health, which is what we talked about in the last century when we talked about the health of other people. Global health is about the health of all of us-all the issues that affect us all, wherever we are in the world. It is about our interdependence in terms of disease and how it can fly around the world very quickly; in the 14th century, it took three winters for the Black Death to get across Europe, whereas it took three days for SARS to get around the world earlier this century. We are also interdependent in our use of the same staffing and resources and interdependent in terms of the environment and climate change. All kinds of issues affect our health and we began to understand them much better in this past decade than we ever did before.
	The second reason is that the diseases from which we suffer have been changing. There are many more non-communicable diseases, and in that context context itself is vital. We are beginning to understand better the social, behavioural, cultural and economic aspects of global health, and the emerging discipline is about taking on these issues and about understanding and acting on the wider determinants of health. Education needs to do this as well.
	Thirdly, global health is about recognising that health is about health systems and how healthcare is delivered to individuals and populations. It is not just the theory of the laboratory and lecture room but the reality of the clinic and the community.
	The fourth point that drives very many people is that experience in other countries is extremely valuable to us in the UK. Many who are involved in global health are driven by a passion to do something in poorer countries, but it is good for the UK as well. It develops people personally and they can learn from new examples and new experiences, and of course learn about some of the people living in their own country whose origins may have been far away.
	Let me refer to the recent Lancet commission report that was published at the end of November, called HealthProfessionals for a New Century:Transforming Education to Strengthen Health Systems in an Interdependent World. The commission was chaired by Julio Frenk of the Harvard School of Public Health, and by Lincoln Chen of the China Medical Board, of which I was privileged to be a member. This was the first such attempt to look globally, with a global set of commissioners, and to learn from innovation everywhere in the world-not just Europe and America-and to do so across all professions on which we could collect data. It draws out some key lessons about how education needs to happen in the future: about how it needs to be interprofessional and transprofessional, going across disciplines and outside them to involve the public. Education needs to be competence-based, systems-based and IT-enabled.
	The report also shows how our institutions need to change, breaking down barriers and connecting not just across disciplines but going outside health across locations and countries. Let me mention just one example that brings it alive: the IHI Open School. There are now 80 chapters in universities across world in 28 countries. This is a coming together of medical students to learn via the internet about subjects that are not covered in traditional courses: quality improvement, systems thinking and such like. They are studying in one school, maybe in the UK, but adding to it from elsewhere. This is the sort of model that I think we will continue to see.
	The final point about the report is that it talks about transformational education: the effort to create professionals who are able to lead and make change in today's changed world. A brief illustration of the wide-ranging thinking on this in this country can be seen from the activities of two groups: Alma Mata and Medsin. Alma Mata is a 1,000-strong group of junior doctors and young health professionals from other disciplines. Medsin is also about 1,000-strong and made up of medical students. They advocate precisely that global health should be included in the syllabus and set out their vision for the doctor of the future, which is very important as they are the doctors of the future.
	It is encouraging to see that the establishment is responding, including the Royal Colleges-and we have two former presidents of Royal Colleges speaking in this debate. To take one example, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is very concerned about the lack of support for junior doctors who want to work overseas and who want to include that in their training and not be disadvantaged in their careers by doing so. There are also organisations such as the London International Development Centre, which works with six London institutions and runs, among other things, courses of students as global citizens. There is a very much wider view here about what needs to change. Indeed, developments in partnerships between institutions are very ably supported by THET, and I am delighted to know that Her Majesty's Government through DfID have launched an even more substantial scheme to promote these partnerships.
	There is a lot happening in the UK, but this is a worldwide phenomenon and things are moving faster in the US and Scandinavia than here. I can imagine the Minister saying, "Very good, we're happy to encourage this, but what has this got to do with Government and the Department of Health?". My answer is that it really does have an impact on us. I stress that this sort of activity is not just for the benefit of foreigners; it is about creating better health professionals who are better able to care for people of this country with our 21st-century diseases and lifestyles.
	I suggest three actions. The first is extremely practical. I ask officials in the noble Earl's department to report to him on what more can be done to help trainee doctors to spend some time abroad as part of their training and to do so in some numbers, not with the odd one or two who take a risk with their careers. That would make this much more mainstream and much more positive.
	Secondly, the Minister's department should meet the universities and the professional education schools of medicine and nursing and the wider health schools to consider the findings of the Lancet commission and decide what action might jointly be taken to develop the education of health professionals and to get some impetus and coordination behind the moves that are happening all over this country.
	My third request is that the Minister's department provides active support for the involvement of NHS people and organisations in the DfID programme of partnership, recognising that this is a difficult time for the NHS but making it clear from the top that this is good thing for people to be engaged in. It is about the future, and there may even be ways of looking at things like the newly announced early retirement scheme, which might actually help in developing these sorts of programmes.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on initiating this debate, and I admire the outstanding work that he had been doing on this vital subject. His natural modesty precludes him detailing his extensive work. He is, in fact, joint chairman of the Global Health Workforce Alliance, which is giving a new impetus to the subject nationally and internationally. His report, entitled Global Health Partnerships, graciously gives credit to the many initiatives in this field, especially to THET, which was set up by that pioneer Professor Eldryd Parry.
	Medical students have for years spent several months of their clinical training working in developing countries and gaining valuable insight into global medicine. King's, Guy's, St Thomas's, St. George's and UCL are already running courses on the subject. A great deal is going on, but much more could be done. We can encourage more partnerships to be set up between medical schools in the UK and developing countries, for instance the new medical schools in Ethiopia. The medical schools and hospitals here need to make it easier for our graduates to go to those countries for longer periods, not only to enjoy invaluable new clinical experiences but to help medical students abroad to achieve their goals. They can increase their help to the medical students out there by demonstrating physical signs, new ways of teaching, how to get the best out of their libraries, data collection and so on.
	There is unprecedented interest among medical students in helping to develop this field, and good organisations are at work, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recently drew attention to the need for the NHS to help to plan the work abroad of junior doctors. In Guy's Hospital in 1972 we set up a comprehensive surgical training programme involving a large part of the south-east of England. One of the years of the seven-year programme had to be spent abroad, and that proved very popular.
	With the hospital ship part of the charity Mercy Ships, we not only provide free surgical treatment to the poorest of the poor but we teach the local surgeons the kind of operations that are appropriate in their country given their available resources. For instance, in Togo this year three Togolese eye surgeons were taught the best way of removing cataracts without the need for the expensive equipment that is used in the West and cannot be afforded in Africa. Now one surgeon is at work in the north of Togo, one in the south and one in between, so they cover the whole country.
	An example of the excellent work done by many of the doctors in global health is a junior trainee at Guy's Hospital called Abigail Boys. She works for Mercy Ships intermittently and has done so for the past six years. She came across a 13 year-old girl in Ghana whose tumour of her face was too complicated for Mercy Ships to cope with, so she raised thousands of pounds to bring her to the Royal London Hospital, where she had an amazing 11-hour operation, which was carried out successfully by the distinguished surgeon Iain Hutchison, whose wife enhances the Benches opposite. So long as our future surgeons are going to be like this young lady Abigail Boys, who is so passionate about helping the developing world, we can look forward to an ever-increasing participation in global medicine.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing this debate. I had a quick look at his biography, and three areas stand out: his experience of the National Health Service, his involvement as a fellow of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and, above all, his political interest in the developing world. It should come as no surprise that he has chosen global health and medical education for this short debate. No longer can we simply concentrate on learning about what is appropriate for the health of people in the United Kingdom; we have to take into account post-war migration and our interdependency with other nations. We also have to accept that the process of globalisation crosses the geographical boundaries of all nations.
	The globalising economy relies increasingly on the skills of people wherever they are available, and international migration is a key factor in ensuring that Britain benefits from this phenomenon. I shall give an analogy. Climate change is not restricted to a single nation. Last week we dealt with the outcomes of the Cancun climate conference. For the first time there is an international commitment to,
	"deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions".
	Here is a recognition that a nation cannot act alone. The Medsin UK response on global health acknowledges that the health of people in every nation is interconnected. A global health approach seeks to understand how individuals and population health are determined by global, as well as local, factors.
	I realised the need for an international dimension to training when some years ago my wife and I had returned to rural Sussex following a visit to India. After some days, despite having taken malarial precautions, my wife developed a fever. The local doctors could not make a diagnosis and her condition deteriorated. She thought that despite all the precautions she had contracted malaria, and decided to take her temperature at regular intervals. The results demonstrated that she probably had malaria. The doctors were not convinced and took her blood to look for parasites, but they did not find any as they took it at the wrong time of day. She remained undiagnosed and decided to treat herself. She obtained medication and worked out the appropriate doses and timing of the medication. I am pleased to say that, after six weeks of being ill, she made an almost instant recovery.
	Let me say that many medical colleges have recognised the need for global health issues. My daughter, who qualified at St Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College, decided to go to Brazil for her elective experience. She was fortunate during that period not only to spend time in the cities of that country but to work in the Amazon rainforest, which brought home to her the realities of a broader aspect of health, including the impact of poverty on the health of deprived communities.
	There are a number of factors that we need to take into account. I urge the Minister to look at the broader determinants identified by Medsin UK: health financing, human rights, migration and environment. I am tempted to criticise the Government's points-based system of immigration, but I shall refrain from doing so. Suffice it to say that the treatment of overseas doctors by the previous Administration was shameful; we continually moved the goalposts, and many of them suffered serious hardship when having to return to their country of origin.
	The present cutbacks in university funding at about 6 per cent, which was announced today, are likely to impact on medical colleges. There is already evidence that some universities will no longer be able to afford training in certain disciplines. It is vital that knowledge is shared with countries abroad. Numerous good practices have been developed in countries such as Taiwan from which we can learn. India is making tremendous headway in providing medical tourism. It is also providing medicines at a much lower cost than we do in this country.
	I am delighted that the noble Lord who is to follow me today is contributing to this debate. When I visited Ethiopia, there were those in the healthcare professions who valued his knowledge and advice. That, to my mind, is the acceptable face of our contribution to the third world.

Lord Patel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, exaggerates my contribution to Ethiopia or anywhere else but I thank him for that.
	On 5 May 2009, Barack Obama, in announcing a $63 billion programme of global health, said:
	"We will not be successful in our efforts to end deaths from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis unless we do more to improve health systems around the world, focus our efforts on child and maternal health, and ensure that best practices drive the funding for these programs".
	The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to whom I am grateful for initiating this debate, remarked that the USA and certain other countries are well ahead of us in developing global health as a universal programme of the country. That is not to say that many universities in our land have not embraced the issue of global health. I declare an interest. I am affiliated with the University of Dundee in many ways. I am proud that the university has a module in year two of medical students' training that gives them knowledge and some experience of global health. We run a summer school on a yearly basis that advances epidemiology and global health issues and we also have a major research programme in the university for developing drugs for the less well known tropical diseases.
	There are also other universities, including UCL and KCL, which have also started such programmes. We need to do the same as the United States has done and drive this further, to develop a university consortium of global health in the United Kingdom that promotes learning, education, scholarships and also research. That is something we need to address and it could be addressed by the Department of Health because it is primarily a health issue.
	Both our research organisations, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, have major research programmes and fellowships that drive them. My college, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has programmes for global health but the constraint has been the ability to find funding for trainees who wish to take part in overseas training as part of their training. Both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have such programmes. The modules that these trainees undertake overseas are accredited on a case by case basis. The funding, however, is not available and neither is there flexibility in specialist training. That is something that again the Department of Health can assist with.
	I am privileged to be associated with an international organisation that has developed training and service in areas of obstetric fistula from which some 2 million women worldwide suffer. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has worked in this area and he referred to his commitment to working with Mercy Ships. He deserves the gratitude of those women in areas in which he has worked for years. We have developed a curriculum for training in this area of obstetric fistula which has now been accepted by all the obstetric fistula surgeons worldwide.
	The organisation also works with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, receiving funding from them of more than $10 million over a period of five years to develop a strengthened health system across the United Kingdom. In that respect, Scotland has a programme with which the University of Dundee is heavily involved, including a programme in Malawi for health systems. Our fifth-year medical students go there for attachment for a period of six weeks on a yearly basis.
	There are good things being done in this country, but both DfID and the Department of Health can help develop these educational training programmes further. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has said, the interest in this subject is demonstrated by the number of speakers who are taking part in this short debate and the number of others who would have liked to have done so. The time could have been filled many times over. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, not only for initiating the debate but for the leadership he has given in this subject both by his report in 2007 and in what he is doing now.
	I declare an interest as chair of the academic health science centre King's Health Partners. Academic health science centres are by their nature well suited to promote and give leadership to this subject since they bring together research into global diseases, medical training-which can now be delivered remotely and is anyway a highly international business-and clinical care. The four members of King's Health Partners-King's College London, Guy's and St Thomas's, King's College Hospital and the South London and Maudsley-already have individually a proud and established history in various areas of global health. We have had a 10-year partnership with the Tropical Health and Education Trust-THET-to which other speakers have referred. This was recently reinforced in February of this year by the signing of a memorandum of understanding and the co-location of THET Somaliland and the THET executive team at King's College Hospital in Denmark Hill. We also have partnerships with the University of California, San Francisco and two other organisations that have been mentioned in this debate: Medsin, the national student global health network, and Alma Mata, the national postgraduate doctor global health network, both of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
	Being located in south London, where there are such ethnically and culturally diverse communities, this work has local as well as international significance. As others have said, global health these days is not a matter of looking outward to other countries; it begins and has relevance at home. It also has a strategic significance at the national level, which I do not think has been mentioned by other speakers. Quite rightly, investment in reducing inequalities within and between countries is integral to Untied Kingdom and EU global security strategies. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said that action now needs to be taken. King's Health Partners can claim to be taking that action. We seek to bring together the expertise that exists in the various parts of our partnership. We recently agreed to set up a King's Health Partners global health board, in addition to the board of the partnership.
	This subject also, understandably and rightly, inspires young people and young doctors. Having recently attended a half-day seminar on the subject at King's Health Partners, I saw what a great interest was expressed. The hall was packed to the gunnels. Like others, I eagerly look forward to what the Minister will say in response to the suggestions that have been made this evening to give a boost to this important and internationally vital work.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on initiating this debate. I declare an interest as chair of the international medical aid charity Merlin, which operates in the poorest countries after conflict and natural disasters. It is from that perspective that I want to speak this evening.
	There is a long and fine tradition of trained British doctors and medical staff working in poor countries, bringing expertise, training medical staff on the ground and saving lives. To take one example, more than 70 NHS staff with different skills have worked with Merlin surgical teams in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. This should not be seen just as altruism, important though that is. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl said, it should be encouraged as part of medical training in this country. Like so much in today's world, medicine is global. This country will benefit directly if the doctors and other medical staff working here bring with them first-hand experience of conditions and diseases elsewhere in the world.
	To give one other example, health staff who worked with Merlin on HIV and TB control programmes in Russia and Kenya have gone on to work in an NHS trust that covers Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, which have some of the highest rates of those diseases in the United Kingdom. That is to our advantage, as well as the advantage of those they are helping in other countries. So I do strongly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that medical training and practice in the UK should encourage and certainly not disadvantage those many British medical staff who wish to spend part of their training or part of their professional life working in poor countries. It seems to me heartening that so many medical staff training and working here should want to spend time working in developing countries and it is very much in our interest that we should encourage them in that laudable aim. There are, of course, problems but it really is in our interest to overcome those and to encourage, for example, deans of medical schools to use their existing discretion to encourage staff to serve in developing countries.
	I was reading this afternoon the document Liberating the NHS. It states:
	"We want everyone who works in the NHS to reach their full potential and achieve better health outcomes for their patients".
	Indeed we do, but it seems to me that working in developing countries and the experience our staff get there is an essential part of achieving that objective. We are right to be proud of the quality of our medical staff in this country and we are right to be proud, too, of those who wish to spend time helping others in poorer countries. Those two things should go together and not in any way be in conflict. It is very much in our interest that that should be so and, like others, I look forward to the Minister's comments on that particular point.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on securing this debate and also on his work in this field.
	Eight years ago I was in Malawi as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. We were looking at health provision in that country generally as well as focusing on maternal health. It was of course at the height of the AIDS epidemic in Malawi. I have never forgotten the visit we had to one of the hospitals there. From the distance we saw a pleasant enough building but as we entered the gates we saw people lying on rough, old blankets on the grass outside, brought in by relatives who needed to get back to their own work as quickly as possible, there being no help at all out in the villages outside the hospital. Inside the hospital itself, every ward was packed with dying AIDS patients; on bedsteads, on mattresses under the bedsteads and packed in between the beds. We saw ward after ward of human misery in a hospital totally unable to cope. Those patients received no treatment except some rehydration if they were lucky. It was a scene from hell.
	At that time, for a population of around 10 million, there were 43 doctors in Malawi and so few nurses in that hospital that it was coping with well over 100 patients to each nurse. Even with that scant provision there was a 40 per cent vacancy rate. The staff were exhausted and demoralised and many had left after their training to work in South Africa or Europe where they could be guaranteed decent work experience and in-service training. It was not just the poor salaries that drove them away; and who could blame them?
	The Malawi Government soon resolved to take action and with overseas aid, including, I am glad to say, a good deal from our own Department for International Development, more staff were trained. Salaries were increased combined with contracts to stay in Malawi. Students' fees were paid if they contracted to work for at least three years after qualification and volunteer doctors were brought in from abroad-yes, also from this country-to provide in-service training to staff and better care to patients. Of course the advent of anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS stemmed the tide of that scourge. Healthcare is now slowly improving in Malawi, but very slowly.
	What can we learn from this? First, we must make our doctors and nurses aware of these problems. We can do this by better education at undergraduate and postgraduate level-deans, please note. We must make it easier for young doctors to take a year out in the developing world. The current pressure on them in their postgraduate training prevents this, because it does not count towards their certificate of complete training and the year abroad will not be recognised by the NHS. Sabbaticals are difficult to obtain. I have discovered that they need something called an "out of programme experience", and the bureaucracy involved makes it more like an out of body experience. It is a huge deterrent to young people wanting to go abroad. Hospital trusts will not want to employ locums and there is no national directive to encourage them to release doctors.
	The national conscience should dictate that we help developing countries to upgrade their health systems. Their staff have helped our National Health Service for decades at the expense of their own people in their own countries. It is payback time and I hope the Minister can reassure us that action will be taken.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I, too, warmly thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate so comprehensively. In declaring an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, I will focus on nursing education for global health and I have some positive developments to report.
	First, at pre-registration level, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has stated that,
	"Some aspects of the programme might be undertaken outside the UK for up to six months",
	and many universities are now taking advantage of this opportunity for placements abroad. Post-registration, there is a wide variety of continuing professional courses for nurses in global health issues, including the diploma in tropical nursing and the diploma in reproductive health in developing countries at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, in which I also declare an interest as an honorary vice-president.
	Sheffield University also runs an online masters programme in midwifery and maternity care, fostering many international links and contacts. VSO offers nurses opportunities to work in countries such as Cambodia, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Malawi; and nurses are given extensive training prior to their placement. The VSO's Skills for Working in Development course is accredited by the Royal College of Nursing. At PhD level, the International Network for Doctoral Education in Nursing and the European Academy of Nursing Science offer many opportunities for research exchanges in global health and international collaboration.
	I should briefly like to give one practical example of nursing's contribution to healthcare in this context. I returned just two weeks ago from a visit with my small NGO, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, to the hill tribe people in Chin state in Burma. They are of course suffering at the hands of that country's brutal military regime, but many people in Chin's hill tribes in remote areas are denied access to any healthcare at all. An outstanding young man from Chin state grew up seeing women die in childbirth on kitchen tables, and children dying unnecessarily from diarrhoea because of lack of access to healthcare and lack of any health knowledge. He was determined to become a doctor. He qualified in Armenia and immediately returned, having overcome many difficulties as a doctor, and is now training 315 community health workers from villages deep inside Chin state, where there is no healthcare. As much of this training could be undertaken equally effectively by community nurses and midwives, I introduced this resourceful young doctor to the College of Nursing in Mizoram state in India, where the staff are deeply interested in remote-area primary healthcare and have become interested in his programme. Nurses from the United Kingdom are very willing to help to train these community health workers, who are taking back life-saving knowledge and healthcare to the villages that previously had nothing. Many lives have already been saved.
	I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the nursing profession's capability to respond to global healthcare needs, both in educational initiatives and in practical terms, such as in international partnerships and secondments, to which reference has been made in the medical field, to those developing countries. Secondments benefit those in the developing countries and employers here in the United Kingdom, because practitioners return with enhanced initiative, knowledge, skills and experience-particularly those which transcend cultural borders.
	I could give many other examples from our experiences Sudan, Nigeria and East Timor inter alia, but I hope that the example I have given from Burma reinforces the importance of this significant subject raised by my noble friend.

Baroness Hollins: My Lords, I, too, welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Crisp in calling for this debate.
	As a former VSO volunteer myself in Nigeria many years ago-an experience that I consider to have had a major influence on my career and outlook-I am keen to give more opportunities for healthcare professionals today to gain a better understanding of global health issues. I should like to discuss attempts to develop greater awareness of global mental health issues, particularly in postgraduate psychiatric training by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and I declare an interest as a former president of the college.
	With the help of Professor Rachel Jenkins of King's College, a scheme called the college volunteer programme was established about five years ago. We had wanted to set up a programme with VSO, as two other colleges had done, but this was difficult because VSO responds to requests for volunteers and it was not receiving requests for psychiatrists. In a way, that indicates the low priority given to, or low recognition of, mental health issues in many of the countries where VSO works. Therefore, we set up our own programme and gained agreement to the principle of out-of-programme placements abroad, fully approved for higher training. We put in place some safeguards, which included an in-country mentor providing supervision of all placements, with supplementary e-mail supervision from a UK-based consultant who had relevant overseas experience and who would have helped to prepare the volunteer in advance.
	The intention was threefold, as I shall set out, although not in any particular order. The first was to provide a training experience in global mental health for UK trainees so that they would better understand the health perspectives and needs of migrant communities here in the UK. The second was to do that through meeting an identified need in the host country in a sustainable way. Often such needs were identified through our own college members and fellows who live and work in low and middle-income countries around the world. The third was to ensure that trainees would be equipped and motivated to be able to contribute to health services in low and middle-income countries in the future.
	A number of mental health trusts have set up a specific link with a country, and I give as an example the trust where I have an honorary consultant contract-the South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust. While I was president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, I talked to the chair of the mental health trust about ways in which he could help us to develop our volunteer programme. We thought that Ghana would be a good country with which to establish a relationship, partly because of its political stability but also because we were aware that the trust employed a number of Ghanaian staff, and the catchment population included many West Africans. The scheme at our trust was helped off the ground by a charity called Challenges Worldwide, which helped to set things up in Ghana. The scheme involved the trainee volunteer forgoing one month's salary to cover the overheads involved in setting up the placement. The royal college fundraises to provide bursaries to support trainees' travel costs. I shall quote two recent trainees who have each spent three months in Ghana. One said:
	"This was for me the best professional training experience of my life ... The support I received was excellent".
	The second said:
	"My placement in Ghana was the most fascinating and perspective-changing experience in my career".
	Let us reflect on the fact that the NHS has for many years received the benefit of large numbers of health professionals from low and middle-income countries. Does the Minister agree that the value to the NHS of supporting training placements overseas far outweighs any short-term local costs? Also, can he confirm that all medical postgraduate curricula include core competences in global health issues, and will he comment on what more the professional regulatory bodies can do to ensure that enough appropriately supervised and integrated global health training placements are provided so that trainees have a realistic chance of acquiring some of those core competences?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has a passion for this important issue, and I congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate tonight, the quality of which has proved his passion to be correct.
	Good health in one country cannot be maintained if there is widespread ill health and disease in so many others. I have always felt privileged to be able to participate in debates in your Lordships' House when such expertise and personal commitment is shown and, as so many noble Lords have said tonight, in a globalised and interdependent world, one in which disease certainly knows no boundaries, health is a global issue. The rich world has a responsibility to the developing world to support the growth of their health infrastructures and the growth of their medical education.
	The nature of our responsibilities includes without doubt the need for overseas doctors to train in the UK without unacceptable barriers being placed in their way, or expense, and indeed the need for UK doctors to spend time abroad. We recognise that is a legitimate part of their qualifications, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others. It also includes the need to prepare our own UK-based doctors for the implications and effect of globalisation in our own health service and the UK population. The noble Lord is quite right-our medical training must encompass this challenge and its complexity.
	The previous Government, with no small help, I suspect, from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, produced Health is global: a UK Government strategy 2008-13 in September 2008. In it there was recognition of the fact that a healthy population is fundamental to prosperity, security and stability. It also linked the Government's domestic and international objectives to the issue of improving global health. Could the Minister tell the House, therefore, what the Government are doing to continue this work? Has the department embraced the recommendations contained in that strategy?
	We can look at the threat that global disease can pose. SARS and swine flu are two of the most dramatic examples where the world had to work together to protect itself. There is no doubt that a weakness in the healthcare in one country can put millions at risk. Nearer to home, however, in the UK, and particularly in London, we only have to think about TB and the communities most at risk. I am reminded of this by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who questioned me many times when I was a Minister about this.
	Seventy-two per cent of UK cases of TB are among people born abroad, and about 40 per cent of cases in England are in London. It is vital, therefore, that the health service in London understands the nature of this problem, the communities at risk, and what needs to happen. The increase in migration into the UK means that UK doctors treat patients from all over the world, and medical students must be prepared for this change and understand its implications.
	The report, Tomorrow's Doctors, referred to by several noble Lords, has very wise words on these matters. It says that this is,
	"leading to demands for greater cultural competency in the doctor-patient interaction".
	That is quite right. It continues:
	"Medical students have to be prepared carefully for this change, with curricula exposing them to an understanding of why migration happens and specific migrant health issues as well as how to treat a broad range of diseases not routinely seen in the UK".
	Can the Minister say, therefore, whether TB and other conditions and their management are adequately included in the training of doctors in the UK? Indeed, would the forthcoming change of the Health Education Board mentioned in the document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, which will be an issue for the House in months to come, encompass the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and other noble Lords today?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for calling this debate and express my gratitude for his strong and continuing commitment to issues of global health. I found his speech extremely helpful and thought provoking.
	The Government are deeply committed to issues of international development. In this year's spending review we confirmed that, as well as protecting the NHS budget, we will keep our promise to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid from 2013, helping the billion people who live in extreme poverty around the world. We are equally committed to doing everything we can to meet the millennium development goals. In particular, we are taking bold action to tackle malaria and to improve reproductive, maternal and newborn health. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we are currently reviewing the previous Government's cross-Whitehall global health strategy to ensure its relevance and effectiveness in the coming years.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has linked issues of development with those of the appropriate education of health professionals, which itself has enormous implications both for our nation's health and for that of the rest of the world. As he knows, there are many aspects of the education of health professionals, encompassing pre- and post-registration training, as well as continued professional development. The responsibility for setting the standards required for professional pre-registration sits with the professional regulators. The higher education institutes then design training curricula to meet these standards in partnership with NHS service providers and the regulators. The Department of Health, along with the local NHS bodies that commission professional training, continues to work with the regulators and higher education institutes to ensure that their standards and curricula reflect the changing needs of patients and service delivery.
	In terms of pre-registration education for doctors, we look to the General Medical Council for leadership. Its 2009 publication Tomorrow's Doctors provides the framework that UK medical schools use to design detailed curricula and methods of assessment. I was glad to see the framework was well received by the authors of the recent Lancet Commission publication, Health Professionals for a New Century. The framework also highlights the importance of a global dimension. New graduates must be able to demonstrate awareness, from a global perspective, of the determinants of health and disease and of the variations in healthcare delivery and medical practice. Postgraduate medical training curricula are developed by the medical royal colleges for approval by the GMC. Most of the topics highlighted in this debate are covered in the foundation programme curriculum and core competence framework for doctors developed by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.
	We have come a long way since the noble Lord wrote his report on medical training, Global Health Partnerships, in 2007. My noble friend Lord McColl is absolutely right that there is already significant good practice in the UK in terms of incorporating the global dimension into pre- and post-registration training. This is one part of the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who asked me to consider what more might be done to support this type of activity. Medical students can study global health; they can spend a year studying international health as part of an intercalated degree or can choose to travel to developing countries for the elective component of their undergraduate training. There are also opportunities for post-registration medical doctors to spend part of their specialty training in developing countries, as part of the out-of-programme training and research arrangements. Here, I reassure my noble friend Lady Tonge and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that, if prospectively approved, training of this type counts towards the certificate of completion of training. Details of this initiative are provided in the Gold Guide, a guide for postgraduate specialty training in the UK agreed by the four UK health departments for core and/or specialty training programmes. This sets out a clear process as a guide for post-graduate deans.
	My noble friend Lord McColl-

Lord Liddle: I am extremely grateful to-

Baroness Northover: This is a time-limited debate and the Minister has 12 minutes to reply. There is no possibility of intervention.

Lord Liddle: I shall be extremely rapid.

Baroness Northover: I am sorry. I remind noble Lords that this is the case.

Earl Howe: Perhaps the noble Lord and I can speak after the debate.
	My noble friend Lord McColl stressed the need for taking longer periods overseas and providing greater support for achieving the goals that we have all been talking about. Universities support medical student electives as long as the plans are carefully drawn up to ensure the best possible experience for them and, of course, for the host institution abroad. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, lest there be any doubt in his mind, that we strongly support the principle that trainees should have opportunities to gain experience overseas both for their own benefit and that of the host countries. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was right to say that there are opportunities for postgraduate medical doctors to spend part of their specialty training in developing countries, as I have mentioned, and these can count towards clinical medical training.
	In answer to my noble friend Lady Tonge, we take on board comments about reducing the level of bureaucracy in this process, and we welcome suggestions for improvement. However, we need to ensure both that service can continue to be delivered effectively in the NHS and that training overseas is appropriately recognised, supervised and assessed, which is not necessarily straightforward in every case.
	Earlier this month, the Lancet Commission published a report, Health Professionals for a New Century. In response to some of its specific proposals, I should like to highlight the progress that has already been made in a number of areas. For example, the Department of Health is taking forward its technology-enhanced learning strategy to promote greater use of information technology for learning, harnessing and sharing global education resources. The Medical Training Initiative allows a small number of doctors from developing countries to work and train in the NHS before returning home. The National Leadership Council works with clinicians from all professions to develop their leadership skills and embed leadership across all undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. The Health Partnership Scheme, launched in November by my honourable friend in another place, Stephen O'Brien, will enable NHS professionals to share their skills with nurses and doctors in developing countries through teaching, training and practical assistance. We should also mention the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, entitled, Women Doctors: Making a Difference. It makes recommendations on a range of issues that include improving access to mentoring and career advice, improved access to childcare, more flexible and part-time training, and encouraging women into leadership positions.
	We must always look to improve the standards of medical education in this country. For this reason, as has been mentioned, we have today published Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce, the consultation on the education and training aspects of the NHS White Paper, Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. The White Paper signals a new approach to workforce planning, education and training by,
	"giving employers greater autonomy and accountability for planning and developing the workforce",
	alongside greater professional ownership of the quality of education and training. The consultation will enable my department to do the second thing proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which is to meet with relevant parties to consider the findings of the Lancet Commission report. With the changes set out in the NHS and public health White Papers, the system of healthcare in England is changing, and it is imperative that our system of education and training reflects that change.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked whether curricula include global competences. They do, and in acknowledgement of the case presented by Medsin UK, a global health dimension is included in the 2009 GMC guidance, Tomorrow's Doctors, which states that new graduates must be able to demonstrate,
	"an awareness from a global perspective of the determinants of health and disease, and variations in healthcare, delivery and medical practice".
	In fact, most of the topics highlighted by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which I mentioned, are covered in the foundation programme curriculum published this year. All topics are at least partly described in the core competences for doctors in the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges' Common Competences Framework for Doctors, published last year.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, urged that we should find ways to give active support for doctors to take part in health partnership schemes. We agree that we need to support doctors and other health professionals to take part in that scheme and I can reassure him that the Department of Health is working closely with the Department for International Development on this initiative. I mentioned the partnership scheme earlier.
	The noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to the role of academic health science centres and I welcome the initiatives taken by the AHSCs, both in teaching and research, in global issues. They can contribute a huge amount but perhaps two things above all: the partnerships which they can and do form overseas and their ability to develop cultural competence in UK graduates.
	My noble friend Lady Tonge referred to the need for ethical recruitment. She is absolutely right. She probably knows that the UK was the first country to produce international recruitment guidance based on ethical principles and the first to develop a robust code of practice for employers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made some extremely constructive and important points, as did all other speakers, for which I am very grateful. I shall make sure that these are taken into account during the consultation process.
	In closing, I should like to take this opportunity to invite all interested parties to engage with the consultation to help us develop the recommendations made in the Lancet Commission report and to help shape the future system of education for health professionals.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Bill Main Page

Committee (6th Day)(Continued)

Amendment 45ZA
	 Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton
	45ZA: Clause 8, page 6, line 10, at end insert-
	"( ) the Electoral Commission have certified that the electoral register is being kept substantially up to date in terms of its accuracy and completeness"

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendment seeks to insert into Clause 8(1) a third condition before the Minister must make an order. There are currently two conditions in the Bill: first, that there has been a yes vote in the referendum; and, secondly, in Clause 8(1)(b) that,
	"the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act".
	Without going into detail, that means that the constituency boundaries have been substantially redrawn in accordance with Part 2 of the Bill.
	Our proposal seeks to ensure that, before there is any change in the voting system and any substantial redrawing of the boundaries, proper work is done to ensure that the electoral register is up to date. If that work is not done, you will end up with boundaries being in the wrong place. The electoral quota for the boundary review will be based on the date on which the review begins, according to the new rule in paragraph 9(2) of the new Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act.
	On page 11 of the Bill, new paragraph 9(2), which is a new rule introduced by the Bill, states:
	"The 'electorate' of the United Kingdom, or of a part of the United Kingdom or a constituency, is the total number of persons whose names appear on the relevant version of a register of parliamentary electors in respect of addresses in the United Kingdom, or in that part or that constituency. For this purpose the relevant version of a register is the version that is required by virtue of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to be published no later than the review date, or would be so required but for ... any power".
	I do not think I need to read sub-paragraph (b). New paragraph 9(5) states:
	"The 'review date', in relation to a report under section 3(1) of this Act that a Boundary Commission is required (by section 3(2)) to submit before a particular date, is two years and ten months before that date".
	The effect of all those provisions is that the quota is to be calculated on the basis of the electoral register on the date when the review begins.
	That plainly would not "take into account" underregistration in many areas of the UK. It is no good for the Government to say that they are interested in fair votes if the effect of what they are doing is to ignore the people who should be on the register but are not. The level of underregistration has been of concern to all involved in elections for some time. The redistribution of seats is dependent on the number of electors who are registered and does not take account of those missing from the register. Therefore, it is important to obtain as accurate an electorate as possible. The Boundary Commissions currently have only very limited powers to take other considerations into account, such as population projections, and the Bill requires them to use the registered electorate as the basis for Rule 2 calculations. That again is in new Schedule 2, which states:
	"The electorate of any constituency shall be ... no less than 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota, and ... no more than 105% of that quota".
	There is therefore scope to be 5 per cent above or 5 per cent below in working out how the electoral quota applies in a particular constituency.
	The Electoral Commission published in September 2005 a report entitled, Understanding Electoral Registration: the Extent and Nature of Non-registration in Britain. The commission said that it had carried out,
	"the first systematic and comprehensive analysis of registration rates in Britain since 1993".
	and that the report contained,
	"a detailed analysis of the reasons for non-registration".
	The commission drew on a statistical register check carried out on its behalf by the Office for National Statistics. The report states:
	"According to ONS, the best estimate for non-registration among the eligible household population in England and Wales at 15 October 2000 (the qualifying date for the February 2001 register) lies between 8% and 9%. This compares with 7-9% in 1991. This means that in the region of 3.5 million people across England and Wales were eligible to be on the register at their main residence but were missing from it in 2000".
	In the commission's first analysis of the performance of EROs in 2009, it noted the limited data available on the rates and number of people registering to vote and commissioned new research on the state of the electoral registers in Great Britain. The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain was published in March 2010. Its key findings were as follows:
	"The completeness of Great Britain's electoral registers remains broadly similar to the levels achieved in comparative countries. However, national datasets and local case study research suggest there may be widening local and regional variations in registration levels. While there is no straightforward relationship between population density and the state of local registers, the lowest rates of completeness and accuracy were found in the two most densely populated case study areas, with the most mobile populations (Glasgow city and Lambeth). Recent social, economic and political changes appear to have resulted in a declining motivation to register to vote among specific social groups. This is despite the fact that electors now have more options than ever open to them to register. We made it as easy as it was possible to make for people to register. The annual canvass continues, on the whole to be an effective way to update the registration details of electors; but rolling registration, a tool introduced to maintain the register, has not prevented the completeness and accuracy of the registers declining between annual canvass periods. Under-registration and inaccuracy are closely associated with the social groups most likely to move home. Across the seven case study areas in phase two (therefore excluding Knowsley), under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic (BME) British residents (31%). Each revised electoral register lasts for 12 months, from December to December; during that period, the rate of completeness is likely to decline by around 10 percentage points, owing mainly to population movement (although the rate of decline will be higher in inner London boroughs). The research did not uncover electoral fraud in the case study areas. This may indicate that where instances of registration fraud or malpractice do occur they are likely to be relatively rare local incidents (although it may be difficult to determine instances of intentional over-registration using a survey approach). The research successfully tested new techniques which could help identify some forms of fraud. There is clearly scope to introduce measures locally which would improve the completeness and accuracy of specific registers. However, there are limits to what can be achieved nationally using the current registration system".
	That is a summary of the Electoral Commission's conclusions.
	According to data compiled by the Office of National Statistics and the House of Lords Library, for example, 24,000 voters are missing from the electoral register in Sheffield Central. In Portsmouth South, 20,000 eligible voters are missing, making a registration rate of 78 per cent. In Wimbledon, the figure is 80 per cent. That does not mean that 80 per cent are missing; it means that only 80 per cent of the people in Wimbledon who could vote are registered. That is 16,000 missing voters. In Colchester-I take these by way of example-missing voters stand at 14,500.
	The honourable Member for Hemsworth, Jon Trickett MP, the Labour Party spokesman on social exclusion, has commented:
	"It is young people, ethnic minorities, people living in private rented accommodation and those living in deprived areas which will be disproportionately affected by these changes".
	What he said completely reflects the detailed conclusions of the Electoral Commission report, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain.
	If the Government plough ahead with their plans without addressing the state of the register, they will, in effect, be shutting the door on millions of eligible voters. I go back to the point that any suggestion about fairness should include fairness not just for those on the electoral register but for those who are not on the electoral register. When the previous Government were in power, we set the wheels in motion for increasing the number of eligible voters on the electoral register. We facilitated the introduction of individual voter registration but at a pace that sought to avoid the negative consequences of this when it was rolled out in Northern Ireland.
	The Deputy Prime Minister, Nicholas Clegg, to his credit, has openly acknowledged that there is a problem with the state of the register.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does this not all inevitably mean that there will be some inner-city constituencies with huge populations in the very parts of the kingdom where most of the problems of social deprivation are concentrated?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is inevitably the conclusion of the figures that I am talking about. If one goes back to what one would have thought would be the basic purpose of these changes-to increase trust in the electoral system for those who most depend on what politics does-to rush through a change in the boundaries that excludes them because there has not been a focus on who is on the register and who is not will tend to decrease trust. What is in it for the young person? What is in it for the person living in private rented accommodation? What is in it for the member of the black and minority ethnic group if the rushed changes do not include them?
	If the Government are sincere, we commend this. We warned them to be wary of the experience in Northern Ireland where there were changes and not to rush individual voter registration. But the House and the country deserve to know the substance of their plans in relation to improving registration against the analysis that the Electoral Commission has made.
	I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will respond to the points that I have made. The coalition has made it a condition of the introduction of the AV system that there is a new boundary for almost all of the constituencies in the country. Surely we want those boundaries to reflect where the voters live.

Lord Rooker: In asking this question I may make myself look a right idiot, but thinking about what is happening, am I right in assuming that there will still be a census next year?

A noble Lord: Yes.

Lord Rooker: That means that there will be hundreds of thousands of census enumerators crawling around the country in March. Could they not check that the people in the dwellings that they go to are on the electoral register? It seems an ideal time for advance publicity before the referendum planned in May. We have a census taking place at some time around March. I know there is always an argument about swapping information, but this is an ideal opportunity, particularly in the areas where it is known that there is under-registration. There is nothing new in what my noble and learned friend says: the same areas were under-registered 30 years ago. In those special areas an effort could be made by the enumerators to cross-check their results at the end of the day with the electoral register.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with my learned friend-sorry; my unlearned but profoundly friendly friend. Of course what I am saying is well known to everybody. However, he is wrong to say that the matter has remained static for 30 years. According to the ONS, the best estimate for non-registration among the eligible household population as at 15 October 2000 lies between 8 and 9 per cent. This compares with 7 to 9 per cent in 1991, so I think with respect that it is getting worse.
	If this is meant to be the dawn of new politics, should the Government not commit themselves to doing all in their power to enable local registration officers to maximise the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register? No system is perfect and that is why my amendment does not propose any standard of perfection. It simply requires the Electoral Commission to certify that the electoral register has been kept substantially up to date.

Lord Campbell-Savours: When I talk to electoral registration officers, they are conscious of the fact that their budgets are not ring-fenced within local authorities. There is a danger that despite all the legislation that has been going through in recent years about individual registration and so on, they simply will not have the resources to ensure the high levels of registration that my noble friend is calling for.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I appreciate that. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has not said it, but he will be aware that in the context of what are quite savage cuts in local authority expenditure, the enthusiasm for this sort of work in local authorities will go down yet further.
	The coalition presents its proposals and the noble Lord, Lord McNally-sadly not in his place at the moment-when confronted with difficulty says that what he seeks to achieve is fairness. It must involve fairness for all groups, but most particularly those groups that are under-represented.

Lord Rennard: Does the noble and learned Lord agree with me that all previous Boundary Commission reviews-I think that there have been five general reviews since 1944, conducted under Labour and Conservative Governments-have been based on the electoral register as it is, rather than as we would wish it to be: even more accurate and even more complete? Would he perhaps acknowledge the contribution of his noble friend Lord Wills, who was instrumental in improving the accuracy of the electoral register under the previous Labour Government, ensuring for example the provision of the rolling register, so that hundreds of thousands more voters were added to the register in April this year in order to vote in the general election? The system is now rather better than it has been previously, so the register as of 1 December this year will be more accurate than it was previously, and it is a good register on which to base the next Boundary Commission review-certainly better than it would have been otherwise and no different or worse than the previous five Boundary Commission reviews.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with the noble Lord when he says that it is better than the previous five boundary reviews. I agree with him that my noble friend Lord Wills made a major contribution to that and that we did a lot to deal with the issue. The evidence that I rely on is the March 2010 report of the Electoral Commission. Although the electoral register prepared in April indicated some improvements, the speech that I made earlier indicates the fundamental problems in relation to the register, which the Electoral Commission identified. I would be extremely surprised and concerned if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, departed from the position of the Electoral Commission in relation to that. Yes, we have made improvements, but there is still a long way to go, in particular in relation to the private rented sector, young people and black and minority ethnic groups. There is a very substantial group of people who are not on the electoral register but who could be if an effort was made.

Lord Beecham: Will my noble and learned friend comment on the likely impact of individual registration, which is shortly to come, on the total on the register?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In Northern Ireland, there is a problem with individual registration. Eventually it should improve the accuracy of the register, but it will take some time in relation to it, and household registration tends to involve more people being registered than does individual registration. We introduced individual registration because we did not like the idea of it being the head of the household who determined whether or not you got registered. My noble friend Lord Beecham is right in saying that because that measure might reduce the number of people registered, the consequence is that you need more effort on the part of the electoral registration officers to ensure that things keep up. Ultimately, you cannot-if the claim is fairness-say that it is fairness in relation to this one aspect but not another.
	If the position of the coalition is that it will not introduce AV, even if 99 per cent are in favour, until the Boundary Commission has reported, why will it not also accept our condition, which would have a fundamentally galvanising effect on electoral registration? It would mean that the Government of the day had the highest possible motivation to ensure that there was proper registration and that the sorts of problems to which the Electoral Commission has referred would be dealt with. This is how to make a difference in this regard.
	I await the noble and learned Lord's answer as to why, if at all, this proposal would not and should not be introduced. It is a wholly good thing, which would improve our democracy and would, most importantly, bring into our democracy people in black and minority ethnic groups, which are perhaps the groups that feel most alienated and excluded by it at the moment. I beg to move.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on the basis that, if the boundaries are to be reviewed, the numbers should be as accurate as possible. First, however, I did not agree with what my own Government did in relation to changing the arrangements for registering for elections. I thought the head of the household system was far better than individual registration, and far more likely to ensure that more people were registered. I am worried about the effect that it will have when we move on to individual registration. I think that 17 or 18 year-olds are less likely to fill in forms, whereas the head of the household could ensure that all of the people of voting age were registered. I think it is a pity that we have moved in that direction.
	However, the introduction of the rolling register, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, has significantly improved the situation. More and more people are registering now instead of having to wait for one particular date to register. That has been a great improvement.
	My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that the numbers could be more accurate if an effort was made-I want to come to that point-to make sure that people are registered. He mentioned that two of the areas in which there was the lowest registration were Lambeth and Glasgow-he mentioned Glasgow in particular. I draw to the attention of the House what happened in Glasgow over the few months up to the end of November. Because the problems of under-registration were causing concern to MPs in Glasgow, they asked the leader of the council, councillor Gordon Matheson, to carry out an exercise of going around the city to see if people were not registered who ought to be. During the course of just a few months, nearly 36,000 extra voters were registered. That is an astonishing number. If that was carried out in every constituency, in every city, and in every county, then we would get a much more accurate picture of those people who are not now registered and who ought to be.
	I have raised this in the context of other areas, and I have been told that it is too late now to get registered if the timetable in this Bill is adhered to. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is the case and whether we could ask each council to undertake the kind of exercise that was carried out in Glasgow.
	If it is too late, then we need to consider alternatives, but if it is not, we should be getting MPs to encourage councils to carry out this kind of exercise. Before my noble friend Lord Rooker raised it, I, too, had written down the question of the census. That is another opportunity to gather a more accurate picture of those who are eligible to vote. It would be helpful if, in his reply, the Minister would indicate whether it is possible to get the census enumerators, as they go around, to ask an additional question, about registration -the names of the people in the household over 18 or those who will attain the age of 18 by a particular date. They could hand forms out when they are going around, or leaflets. That is my order of preference-to get them registered and take a note of it, then to give them a form and, failing that, to give them a leaflet. That would help.
	I do not want to hold back the House unduly regarding this, but one of the things that has been noticed, and this has been said by some other colleagues in previous debates, is that it is funny seeing the two former Chancellors on the Benches opposite. It is a bit like the characters in the gallery on "The Muppets", sitting there commenting on events.

Lord McAvoy: Waldorf and Statler.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Waldorf and Statler, my noble friend says. I should say that they are distinguished ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer. As they have been around a great deal longer than I have, they will recall-I saw this when we were in opposition in the House of Commons, even when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, and I saw it again when Labour was in power and Tony Blair was Prime Minister-that, as one of my noble friends said earlier, when we went through these kinds of debates in Committee, week in, week out, the Minister would say, "That's a very good point; I'll take that away and look at it and come back on Report". On this Bill, we have had one occasion when the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said that-one miserable occasion. Even then, he did not say that he agreed; he said that he would take it back and have a look at it without any guarantee, sympathy or consideration.
	I think that we could make even better progress through the Bill if, day after day and week after week, the Minister were to say, "That's a good point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has made a good point on this", or, "The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has made an excellent point on that; I'll take it away and look at it and see what can be done about it". So far, though, one such response in six sessions is a very low batting average. It makes the English cricket team look good in comparison. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, whom I have known for a very long time, will recognise the validity of the argument that if you are to have a fair election and fair boundaries, you need to ensure that everyone over the age of 18 is taken account of in drawing up those boundaries.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, what a good point my noble friend has just made; I am sure that we shall all take it into account. What a good contribution, too, from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, and what an interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. It is that last to which I want particularly to address my remarks. The noble Lord made a point that was completely impossible to dispute: in the past, constituency boundaries have been based on registers, registers by and large have been getting better-at least, we have worked on getting them better; we do not ever have a completely firm idea of how many people are not registered-and the Bill is therefore soundly based.
	That, however, is not reality. The reality is that with the Bill, for the first time, we are treating electorates as part of a rigid mathematical formula-5.1 per cent over, you have to be cut down; 5 per cent under, you have to cut back. There is a strict limit of 5 per cent within which the Electoral Commission has to work, and some good examples of the effects of that have been brought before noble Lords by outside advisers. But what we are trying to equalise is not some actual number, a number in reality-it is an extremely approximate guess at the number of electors. Yes, it is the number of people who appear on a list, but we have no idea how that relates in each individual constituency to the number of people who actually should be on that list.
	I can guarantee that, under the provisions of the Bill, some seats will have bits cut off them because they are thought to be over the 5 per cent limit whereas in fact they are not; they will be well within the limit, but they will have a very high registration number. More importantly, you will have other seats which are having bits added into them. They have got a perfectly normal number of people living there but an inadequacy in the register means that they are not all counted. This is perfectly all right under the existing way in which the Electoral Commission works. It works in a way where size is only one of the factors it takes into account. It adjusts for such matters as natural boundaries, geography, local authority boundaries and so on, and it comes by and large to the most sensible view on the most sensible set of facts that are available to it. That does not work for a rigid mathematical formula of this kind.
	Half of the solution to this should be to be less rigid about mathematical formulae, both in terms of allowing a greater flexibility around the size allowed to constituencies and by giving a greater weight to the other factors which the Electoral Commission can take into account when deciding the boundaries of a particular seat. We will come later to amendments which are designed to do both those things.
	While this provision of 5 per cent remains, however, at least we have to make sure we are doing the best job we can with the electoral register, a job which is now vastly more important because of its vast mathematical significance in the scheme of things laid out by the Bill.

Lord McAvoy: Does my noble friend agree with my findings, not on a scientific basis, that during and after the poll tax fiasco the importance of people wanting to be on the register was undermined because a whole strata of people found there was a financial advantage not to be registered and somehow there was something lost in the community about the importance of wanting to register. No matter how allegedly better the registers are now, there must be a residual effect of the poll tax. So it may be better but there is a residual damage.

Lord Lipsey: I entirely agree with my noble friend. Indeed it is not just the poll tax; there are a number of factors the whole time that cause people to avoid anything that identifies them individuals and which they think the authorities could catch up with. It may be for bad reasons: they may perhaps be illegally in the country or fear they are here illegally; or good reasons: that they fall for some of the liberal myths about the nature of the modern state and think that they may all end up in prison if they are identified. I do not take it by any means for granted that the improvement in the electoral register will continue over time.
	It is rather like opinion polls. Opinion polls measure less and less because fewer and fewer people are willing to answer the questions because they are frightened that they may be held to task for the answers they give. There is therefore a serious risk of the deterioration of the electoral registers, which makes it all the more wrong that this Bill should have the exact number on the electoral register and the exact number of people in each constituency as its target and also makes it right that, in so far as we can improve these things at all, the amendment moved by my noble friend should be adopted to make them as good as they can be. But that will never be very good.

Lord Touhig: My Lords, I should like to share with noble Lords my own experience of the problems of electoral registration. Prior to the 2005 general election, when I was in the other place, my honourable friend Wayne David, my neighbouring colleague and MP for Caerphilly, and I were absolutely staggered to find that the new register had come out and our electorates had dropped by thousands-I think more than 8,000. We had a meeting with the electoral returning officer who was an official of his association and he explained to us that across the country electoral registration officers were pursuing different approaches to compiling the electoral register. Some were doing canvasses, some were sending out letters, some were sending out post cards and so on and so forth. The real top and tail of it was this: the council was simply not providing sufficient money for the electoral registration officer to carry out an annual canvass.
	With the best will in the world, rolling registers have helped but they are more of a convenience. I do not think there is a great deal of evidence to show that many more people have actually registered. I am a bit concerned about individual registration-

Lord Rennard: The noble Lord suggests that perhaps few people have taken advantage of the rolling register. Does he not recall that in April-the month of the general election campaign-many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly young people, used this rolling register facility to register to vote in the general election? All the reasons why people do not wish to be on the register may apply in the future, while this year, because of the general election, many more people applied for inclusion on it. That is why 1 December might be a very good date on which to base the boundary review.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: Before my noble friend responds, will he consider what those young people, many of them probably students, will think, having got on to the register and possibly having voted Liberal Democrat, possibly because of tuition fees; and how they may now feel about being added to the register?

Lord Touhig: Somewhat disappointed. Taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I am sure large numbers of people-large numbers of young people-registered. At the time of a general election, for reasons that could be national or local, people always speed up their registration. However, I am not entirely convinced that a rolling register will improve the total number of people registered. As I say, I am a little concerned that individual registration might deter people from registering. If it is to be done by a canvass but the whole family is not in the house, what will the canvasser do? Should he or she just take the names of one or two people and register them, while the other three-perhaps grown-up children-do not get registered?
	My point, coming back to my own experience, is that this simply will not improve registration. I appreciate that our economy and our country are in a difficult financial situation at present. However, registration will not improve unless central government provides the funding and directs local authorities to carry out an annual door-to-door canvass. In the past when we had such door-to-door canvasses, registration was, I believe, much higher. Unless we go back to that and provide the resources for it, it will not happen. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made the point that the resources are lacking. My experience with my local council is simply that, with the best will in the world, it was not going to put in the resources necessary for an individual annual canvass. Unless we grasp that nettle, we will not improve the total number of people on the register.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I will intervene only briefly because I do not want to get into this whole debate about individual registration once again. I spent hours on my feet in Committee on two pieces of legislation that went through under the Labour Government that introduced this monstrous piece of legislation on individual registration. It will be to our ultimate cost but that is an argument for another day. All I want to say is that I intervened in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the question of inner-city constituencies because there is a real problem developing here. Because of lack of registration and this national formula, we will end up with fewer inner-city seats but ones that have vast populations.
	We must remember that inner-city seats involve far more work. I remember when I was the MP for Workington, comparing my constituency workload with that of some of the London MPs. They got three or four times the volume of mail that I did-so much so that they often simply could not provide the level of service that they wanted to in their inner-city seats. I thought I was being heavily pressured by constituents. One of the major problems in inner-city seats is to do with immigration, often involving groups of people who are not registered at all and who cannot register. That is in addition to the general problem of higher population. I simply do not believe that the Government have taken this whole matter into account. They say, "Oh well, local authorities can simply put the resources in", but they cannot. I say again that my own Government failed to ring-fence these budgets. However, if we had known that this legislation was coming, we might well have had to think more seriously about the need to ring-fence budgets in this area. In some ways we are now paying the price for not having done so. I invite Conservative Members to ring up some of the electoral registration officers that I have talked to, who complain that they simply will not be able to deliver on the Government's agenda in this area.
	Finally, when we look at this debate it is important to consider what happens in rural Conservative seats with what I believe to be a far lower level of casework as against the position of city centre seats in London, Birmingham and Sheffield. We should actually consider the different workload. I think many Conservative Members simply do not understand the weight of additional work that arises in those constituencies. I cannot see any way around it. There is nothing in this legislation that is there to help; we have had no undertakings from the Dispatch Box that we are going to get over this problem. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton has repeatedly raised this question of higher populations in inner city seats and we have heard nothing from the Government. As this Bill progresses through Committee I think we are going to find that a lot of our debate revolves around that particular issue.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, in introducing his amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, correctly identified that this would add a third precondition to the order being laid to implement those parts of the Bill in the event of a yes vote in the referendum and the introduction of the alternative vote.
	Perhaps it will not come as any surprise to your Lordships' House that we cannot accept that there should be a further condition. We are not quite sure what "substantially up to date" means and, quite frankly, no case has been made as to why it should be done with regard to setting this order in motion as opposed to the fundamentally important point-on which I would substantially agree with what has been said not only by the noble and learned Lord but by other contributors-of getting a more accurate electorate. Indeed, I would say that even if there were a no vote in the referendum it should not in any way diminish the wish and the objective of trying to ensure that the electoral register is made as accurate as it possibly can be. It is important that it should be as up to date as possible but I do not believe it should be a condition of the commencement of the AV provisions.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the electoral registration officers across local authorities in the United Kingdom already have a statutory duty to take the steps that are necessary to maintain the registers and the commission has a statutory responsibility to promote public awareness of electoral registration and elections and to set and monitor performance standards and electoral services. It is worth noting that the report to which the noble and learned Lord referred, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain, published in March this year, reported a registration rate in the United Kingdom of 91 to 92 per cent. That compares reasonably well with other countries. Furthermore, the commission's report, Performance Standards for Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain, also published in March, showed that just under 96 per cent of electoral registration officers met the completeness and accuracy of electoral registration records standard this year, a considerable improvement on the previous occasion.

Lord Campbell-Savours: When the Minister quotes such a figure as 91 per cent, does he mean that 91 per cent of the population are registered or does he mean 91 per cent of the households in the particular area have submitted a return to the registration officer?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As I understand it-if I am wrong I will certainly make the correction-it is not of the population because obviously there are members of the population who are ineligible to appear on the electoral roll. I understand that it is the figure of those who are eligible to vote.
	I take the important point made by the noble and learned Lord that there are groups-young people, people in the private rented sector, people from ethnic minority communities-where the figure of non-registration is disturbingly high.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: If the Electoral Commission can produce that figure of 91 per cent registered of those eligible to vote, then it must have a figure of those eligible to vote. If it has a figure of those eligible to vote why not use that figure in each constituency rather than the registered figure?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I understand that. If I am wrong, I will readily correct it. However, the point is, as I understand it, that that is trying to compare like with like. It compares reasonably well with other countries, but I readily acknowledge that within that there are groups which are considerably under-represented. The information I have been given is that the figure is 91 per cent of those in the population of voting age.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: In order to calculate that the figure is 91 per cent of the people of voting age, you must know how many people there are of voting age in each constituency. Surely that figure could be used for the boundary reviews, rather than the number of people who have bothered to get their name on the register, and it would be much more accurate.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: It is indicated that voting age may not always mean eligibility to vote, because there might be occasions when people may not be United Kingdom citizens, or be Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland, and would thereby be ineligible to vote.
	The two important points are, first, that that 91 per cent figure is reasonable and compares well with other countries and, secondly, there are still within it groups where the registration rate is not, by any stretch of the imagination, satisfactory; and I believe that there is an obligation to address these issues.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, it is very helpful to have this information from the Minister, but the real point is that it is not what the overall level of registration is, or what the level of registration within groups of the population is; it is what the variation is in the level of registration between constituencies. It is constituency sizes that you are trying to equalise on the basis of these registration figures, and 91 per cent overall could easily hide a difference between 80 per cent at the lowest and 99 per cent at the highest.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: It follows on from what I have said that I have implicitly acknowledged that point, because clearly there are some constituencies where the kind of groups that I have indicated have a lower registration rate tends to be more concentrated. To be fair, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, alluded to the information on that from the reports from the Electoral Commission that have been referred to.

Lord Lipsey: The noble and learned Lord says that it is possible on the basis of knowing what groups are in which constituencies to make a pretty good estimate of the percentage of registration in each constituency. It would be helpful if he published for the House a document setting that out, so that we can see what the variance is. It is not on the variance that these equalisations will happen; it is on the basis that they are all plumb right.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I hope that there is no dispute between any parts of the House that it is important that we try to improve voter registration, and I can assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the electoral register is as accurate and as complete as possible. That is why we are taking forward and progressing towards individual registration. I know that the noble and learned Lord agreed that we were taking along what had been set in motion by the previous Administration, although I understand that there are disputes about that on his own Back Benches. In addition, we are introducing measures such as data-matching schemes to help local authorities gain as complete a picture as possible of eligible voters in their area.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made reference to the census. It was a helpful suggestion. In a previous incarnation in Scotland, I had some ministerial responsibility for the census, and I am only too aware of the sensitivities attached to that. I rather suspect that the Office for National Statistics has thought about the degree to which it would be practical to mix the census with another exercise and the effects that that could have. I do not have the information to hand on whether the ONS has made that analysis, but I would nevertheless be happy to look into that issue. It might also be possible, although I cannot give any definitive answer, for the information from the census to inform us in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, indicated, there are sensitivities about data protection, but perhaps it may be possible for that information to be available for informing further efforts to improve voter registration.
	I confirm that we are piloting data matching between electoral registration officers and public authorities to identify people who are not on the register and target them for registration. We have just run a process for applications and the pilots will occur next year. I say to the noble and learned Lord that the boundaries have always been drawn on the basis of the register, and, as he correctly pointed out, the review date will be in two years and 10 months. As the report is due on 1 October 2013, the review date would be 1 December which has just passed, which, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would be too late. However, I hope he will agree that it is not too late to try to encourage people to get on to the register for the purpose of voting in the referendum and in the other elections which are due to take place next year.
	I also make the point to the noble and learned Lord that, if his amendment were to be carried and the next election in 2015 were held according to a register where the review date was some 10 years ago, the distortion might be even greater. I also point out that, under the Bill, we are seeking to have a review every five years. That would allow us the opportunity every five years to improve and, it is hoped, to take advantage of the improvements to which we are committed and which I know the Administration of which he was a member subsequently supported. My noble friend Lord Rennard paid proper tribute to the work that was done by the previous Administration to try to increase voter registration with a rolling register. These are worthwhile initiatives and we want to continue with them.

Lord Campbell-Savours: When will the first boundary review take place based on individual registration statistics?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: According to the terms of the Bill, I think that the second boundary review will report on 1 October 2018. The noble and learned Lord indicated that there were difficulties involved in rushing registration and we have taken that on board. However, I cannot be absolutely certain about the extent to which that will be fully fed in for the report that comes out in 2018, with, I think I am right in saying, a review date of 1 December 2015. I hope that my arithmetic is correct. We hope to make substantial progress with individual registration ahead of that date.
	I hope to reassure the Committee that this is an important issue and that that is how the Government are treating it. We have put in train measures to try to increase voter registration but we do not believe that that should be a precondition for the introduction of the alternative vote system. However, I believe that such an increase is absolutely right in its own terms and that we should make a concerted effort to improve voter registration, not least so that those who are entitled to vote get the opportunity to do so in future elections and, indeed, in a future referendum.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his response to my amendment. It was gracious and detailed and dealt with the issue. Perhaps I may draw out a number of the points that he made. First, he said-in my view, rightly-that there is an obligation to address these issues. He said that he regarded it as right in its own terms that this issue is addressed, by which I take him to mean that, irrespective of the Bill, it is something that needs to be done. I have not noted his precise words on this but he also accepted that it is an important issue because it effectively disenfranchises the groups on which I think we agree-that is, those in the private rented sector, those in the BME community and young people. That is why it is important.
	In effect, he confirmed that, as the Electoral Commission said, we are getting a registration level of 91 to 92 per cent, which means that about 8 to 9 per cent are not registered. Therefore, there is no dispute in relation to the position.
	He made a point which had not occurred to me but which seems important-that a review two years and 10 months before the effective date means that the relevant date is 1 December 2010. That means that, if you want to make a difference to electoral registration, you need to move the review date a year forward at the very minimum to make it worth while.
	The point that the noble and learned Lord did not deal with is that if, like me, he accepts the importance of dealing with these points, why is this not the obvious Bill in which to do it? If he is serious about dealing with these points, it is obvious that something else is required. The points he relied on to start with-for example, that the electoral registration officers have a duty and the Electoral Commission have an obligation to set a standard, the two particularly good points he relied on-are not only not improving the position but would appear from the comparison between the 1991 position of 7 to 8 per cent, and the 2001 position of 8 to 9 per cent. They are not to be leading to an improvement and therefore something else is required.
	The coalition have taken the view that it would be wrong to introduce AV without first having equalised the constituencies. Why do the coalition regard the equalisation of the constituencies as more important than trying to get a substantial proportion of that 3.5 million who are not registered on the electoral register?
	I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his place. I regard him as the public face of the coalition's defence of this particular Bill. It is hard to imagine a more attractive and handsome public face. What he says in response to practically any complaint about this Bill, and what we are focusing on, is fairness and fair votes. Surely it is fair to the people who are not registered-3.5 million of them-that they get on to the electoral register?
	I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his full answer, which was a genuine response to what I have said. I will come back with an amendment like this on Report which, because of what the noble and learned Lord has said about the review date, to be meaningful has to give enough time for the coalition to make improvements in relation to it.
	Remember that what I am asking for is not a complete and accurate register in every respect but simply a conclusion from the Electoral Commission that they are satisfied, in substance, that all efforts have been taken to get as many people as possible onto the electoral register.
	I will not, therefore, press my amendment tonight but I will come back, taking into account the points that the noble and learned Lord made in his response.
	Amendment 45ZA withdrawn.
	Amendments 45A to 46A not moved.
	Amendment 47
	 Moved by Lord Lipsey
	47: Clause 8, page 6, line 17, leave out subsection (4)

Lord Lipsey: Can the Minister tell me why subsection (4) is there?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asks a very reasonable question. My understanding is that it is a common provision in the context of a power to commence primary legislative provisions by order. It only allows a limited provision to be made where it is genuinely necessary for the purpose of commencing the AV provisions, and the transitional saving power cannot be used to amend either the Bill or any other piece of legislation.
	It was included simply to provide for unforeseen circumstances which might affect the implementation of provisions in the event of a yes vote. As the noble Lord and, indeed, your Lordships may be aware, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the Bill and recommends that the power in Clause 8(4), the one which the noble Lord seeks to delete, should be subject to negative procedure. We have noted the concern of the committee that this power might enable the Government to determine which form of voting system should apply in the case of a particular parliamentary election.
	The Government take the view that there is only one situation in which the power would need to be used: a case where a by-election is called after the AV provisions are implemented but before the first general election to be held on the alternative vote. That situation could arise if it was thought beneficial to commence the AV provisions well in advance of the anticipated next general election. We would wish to do that to give electoral administrators some certainty. In those circumstances, the power would be used to ensure that such a by-election would be held on the basis of first past the post because provision along these lines would ensure that all Members of the other place should be elected using the same electoral system. I hope no one would disagree with that principle.
	The noble Lord has raised the point. The Government take the view that the best approach therefore is to remove the power in Clause 8(4) and instead provide explicitly for the situation as regards the elections prior to the first general election on AV. That makes the Government's intention very clear and removes any room for doubt about how that power might be used. The effect of Amendment 47 on its own would be undesirable. It would remove any power to make the saving provision that we think is sensible in secondary legislation without placing that saving provision in the Bill in its place. It would certainly be our intention to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report.

Lord Lipsey: The noble and learned Lord has sent this particular noble Lord home happy for Christmas. At last we have changed the Bill in some small regard. I am very grateful to him for his open-mindedness and his very clear explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 47 withdrawn.
	Amendment 48 not moved.
	Debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I wish to speak to Clause 8 because I am worried that a certain portion of the House-essentially, the Cross-Benchers-is unaware of the fuller implications of what we are doing. I want to address my remarks primarily to them during the course of this debate. Clause 8 deals with actions that the Government must take following the result of the referendum, a referendum that is based on a simple majority. A simple majority vote is what the Government argue is their way of respecting the will of the people. I quote those words "respecting the will of the people" because they were the words that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used in his response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
	I go back to 13 per cent. That is hardly what I would call the will of the people. I would argue that that not being the will of the people, the Government should-the Bill says "must"-take certain actions in this clause. I would argue that they should not take those actions. I argue that that 13 per cent figure is particularly relevant-we are back, essentially, to a threshold debate-because last week I had conversations with various electoral registration officers in the north-west of England, and from the conclusions that I drew as a result of those debates it is quite obvious that when the referendum takes place in various parts of the country next year, there will be some very low turnouts indeed. I cite the case of Manchester City Council because its elections in 2007 broadly reflect the results coming from a stream of cities in the north-west of England. Liverpool, Burnley, Preston and all the cities around that area broadly had the same turnouts in their local election campaigns. I will refer to a return that was sent to me by Manchester City Council for the elections in 2007.
	The relevance of this to the Cross-Benchers is this; I believe that most Cross-Benchers have had no experience whatever of turnouts in elections. The closest that most Cross-Benchers in this House will ever have been to an election is voting in one. They will never have canvassed, they will never have been members of political parties, and their knowledge of these matters will be very small indeed. I draw the Cross-Benchers' attention to some turnout figures so that when they read the record of the debate, they will understand what happens in these inner city seats-seats that will form part of the national results. It takes only 50.1 per cent of the return in these seats actually to win the referendum.
	I will not name the seats in Manchester, but I will go through some of the turnouts: 24 per cent, 21 per cent, 23 per cent, 22 per cent, 27 per cent, 16 per cent, 29 per cent, 28 per cent, 21 per cent, 27 per cent, 20 per cent, 29 per cent and 17 per cent. Let us remember that it needs only half of these turnouts in terms of cast votes to decide in favour. They will in effect approve the biggest constitutional question, in what I think were the words of Mr Clegg, for the last 180 years. I shall go on: 24 per cent, 29 per cent, 25 per cent, 21 per cent, 21 per cent, 21 per cent, making an average of 27 per cent. Those are very low turnouts indeed. I cannot see how it is possible to justify changing the law on such a major constitutional issue on the basis of low turnouts on this scale.
	If I translate those turnouts into the votes that are actually required in Manchester City, a city of a third of a million people, on an average turnout of 27.7 per cent you need only 13.85 per cent of the electorate to approve the referendum. It means that the votes alone of 42,580 people in Manchester, a city of a third of a million people, would determine the result of whether people were in favour of the change in our electoral arrangements to AV. I do not believe that 42,000 out of a third of a million people in Manchester could in anyone's language be described as the will of the people being exercised in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It is far too low a figure.
	I have spoken in the debate on clause stand part because I hope that when the Cross-Benchers, who I maintain again have no experience whatever of being engaged in political activity, consider this statistic alone, it might give them pause and make them wonder whether it might now be appropriate to introduce a threshold. Despite what was said in the House of Commons, the reality is that this matter was hardly debated at the other end. There was no great debate because of the way House of Commons business is conducted these days. I hope that the statistics I have produced will get through to those whose judgment may be influenced.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this clause is at the heart of Part 1. In my submission, there are two things that one needs to focus on. First, it is to be a compulsory referendum in the sense that the Minister is required to introduce the new AV system without any protection against a low turnout. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that we would trust the view of the people in that respect, but the difficulty about that is that he did not address the argument put repeatedly and effectively that where you are dealing with significant constitutional change, most systems, including ours, build in protections against change that does not have adequate political and popular support.
	This is a constitutional change that does not have the support of Parliament or, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said in the course of the debate, that of any political party. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to address the fact that in this way you could have constitutional change that is supported by 13 per cent of the population but is not supported by Parliament or by any political party. Most people would regard that kind of change as easier than normal legislative change, so will the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, address the argument by saying more than simply, "We trust the will of the people."? Some thought must have been given to that matter. He looks bewildered-as he often does in relation to the Bill-but if he can do no better than that, the House will draw its own conclusions. If his argument is no better than that, he should say so.
	The second point about this provision is that the coalition has decided that before AV is introduced the constituencies should be equalised. This is presumably because it takes the view that it would be unfair to have a new electoral system if there is unfairness in the size of constituencies. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has made the point that they are trying to achieve fairness. However, it is obvious that, as the majority of constituencies in this country will be redrawn, it will be unfair to constituencies if they are redrawn on an inaccurate electoral register.
	In answer to a Written Question from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Government have produced figures setting out the discrepancy between constituencies in who is on the electoral register and who is over 18. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is nodding sagely and I express our gratitude, on behalf of the nation, for his openness in providing that information. The information repays looking at. Take the north-east of England, for example. In the City of Durham 12,714 people over 18 are not on the register in a constituency in which about 67,000 people are registered; in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, 12,164 people are not registered in a constituency in which about 66,000 are registered. In Manchester Central, 11,820 people are not registered in a constituency in which 78,000 people are registered; in Bradford West, 15,885 people over 18 are not registered in a constituency of approximately 65,000; in Sheffield Central, 60,000 people are registered and approximately 24,000 are not registered; in Leeds North West, approximately 68,000 people are registered and 17,528 are not. Which is the greater unfairness: that the constituencies are not equalised or that these numbers of people are not registered? Interestingly, these people are in constituencies with significant numbers of people in the private rented sector or in BME communities.
	Surely the right course for Clause 8 is to ensure that both conditions are met before AV is introduced. It would make a difference because it would provide a drive for electoral registration that has not previously occurred.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Is not the interesting factor governing the statistics introduced by my noble and learned friend that they are primarily Labour seats?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It had not occurred to me that they were Labour seats. I hope that the House will address these issues on the merits of the argument. However, it would not surprise me that they were Labour seats because these tend to be in areas where the poorest-the BME communities, the private rented sector and students-live. If I had thought about it, that would probably have been the answer, but so what if they are Labour seats?

Lord McAvoy: My noble and learned friend complimented the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, on being open and on making the figures available. He did not quite make them available; he produced them only after a Parliamentary Question was put down. He did not for the sake of being helpful to all concerned put down figures for the whole of the UK by country. My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton requested the figures for England; I have asked in a Written Question for the same figures for Scotland, so that I may make the same comparisons. The fact that the Government have not exactly rushed forward with the figures suggests not that they were hiding them but that they were not contributing to a wholly informed debate on people missing from the register.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I had not spotted that the figures did not include Scotland; we had the information for Wales. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was not asked about Scotland, which is why he produced figures only for England and Wales. He is in his place, but does not tell us. I do not know why he did not produce figures for Scotland. It would obviously be worth while to see them. I am sure, knowing the noble Lord as the Committee does, that he would be very willing to produce the Scottish figures. I am not sure whether the Front Bench are nodding or shaking their head. It would be good to see the Scottish figures. No doubt they will be produced in answer to my noble friend.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press my noble and learned friend. The relevance of the figures being for Labour seats is that many people believe that it is why the Government are relatively indifferent to the problem.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know why the Government are behaving in this way. It does not matter to me whether they are Labour or Tory seats. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was absolutely clear-I accept his sincerity in this respect-that he was indifferent to the political hue of the seats and that this was the matter that needed to be dealt with. This is the way to deal with it. That is why the answers that have been given are so surprising. I hope that, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is answering, which I deduce is the case because he floated to his feet before I had an opportunity to make my speech, he will deal with that.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am deeply grateful to the Government Chief Whip for providing this extra time for us to debate Clause 8. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Deben-the artist previously known as John Selwyn Gummer-is here, even though he has moved conveniently to another part of the Chamber. He was concerned that some of us-although I have been here for five years now and have become sort of institutionalised in this place; the noble Lord joined us relatively recently-had imported habits from the other place. I shall try to explain to him and others why some of us here who were in the other place-in my case, it was for 26 years; a number of other Members were there even longer-are deeply concerned about what is happening. This clause is the fulcrum, as someone said earlier, of that.
	Perhaps I can explain it better another way. I go around now to different countries as a member of the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We talk to them about the Westminster system, our system of democracy and control, and the way in which we have checks and balances and parliamentary control of the Executive. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza-I call her my noble friend-was on the board with me for a number of years, and prior to that, and played an excellent role. She will remember all our discussions.
	If the Bill gets bulldozed through, can we still go around to these countries and say that we are the greatest democracy in the world, the epitome of democracy, and that this Westminster system is the one to be held up for others to follow? We saw the Bill of 300 pages hugely amended in the House of Commons-I do not think that it was 300 pages when it started-with lots of amendments put down, lots of clauses never properly scrutinised, and great faith put in the drafters, the civil servants. After five years working with civil servants, I am always very cautious about putting total faith in their drafting, but no doubt Ministers think otherwise.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has put down dozens of amendments in this House which are going to have to go back; huge changes have taken place. The Bill was guillotined in the Commons. They did not consider it in every detail. They did not think: is this right, what are the implications, are there any unintended consequences to this, are there any implications for anything else that we are doing? They did not consider whether there were any implications for fixed-term Parliaments and reform of the House of Lords, as I said in an earlier debate. They did not consider that. Now there is the suggestion that we are not going to be able to consider it properly here. If that is the case, it will have gone through two Houses of Parliament without proper, detailed consideration.
	Take other countries, such as the United States of America. It is not perfect in any way, but it has two democratically elected chambers-the House of Representatives and the Senate-the President taking part in terms of legislation, while the Supreme Court provides an opportunity to consider whether there is anything that infringes the constitution of the United States. We do not have those checks and balances here; we are rushing the Bill through.

Lord Rooker: Has my noble friend ever seen the preposterous way the Americans draw their boundaries?. We can lecture them on the way we draw our boundaries, both now and after we have passed the Bill. My noble friend should not pray in aid the American way of doing things as better, because the way they draw their boundaries is nothing short of a scandal.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend has had a lot more experience than I have. I accept his point in relation to drawing boundaries compared with the way we do it now, but if we pass the Bill and there are no hearings, I do not think I can be proud and pleased that we are doing it the best possible way. I am not saying that the US is perfect. There are other countries that can be prayed in aid.
	We are pushing the Bill through. We have, in this clause, an Order in Council; some people outside believe that the Privy Council is some kind of democratic organisation, a bastion of democracy. My noble friend Lord Rooker will have been at many meetings of the Privy Council. I have only been at one, but it certainly did not seem to me to be any kind of bastion of democracy.
	I am really concerned at the way the Bill is being pushed through without proper consideration. I say this honestly, and I know that a number of Conservative Members have heard me say it again and again: if the Bill goes through unamended in substance, I think that they are going to wake up, in a few months' time and say, what on earth-I was going to say something else-have we let ourselves in for? I think that there will be some deep regret.
	Finally, in relation to what we were discussing earlier-the electorate and whether we draw the boundaries based on those who are registered, or those who are eligible to vote-I can tell the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that this morning, to be helpful, I put down an amendment to page 11, on the interpretation of the "electorate" for the purpose of the Bill, which would take account of that. This was just to show that on this side of the House, we can be helpful. I hope that, eventually, we will get some more help from the Government.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this Bill is a vision of simplicity and clarity. It provides for a referendum on a voting system. If the answer is yes, it should apply at the next general election and there should be fewer MPs and different boundaries. That simplicity should be able to unite us all. Yet in the words of the noble and learned Lord, I am utterly bewildered by the arguments put forward by noble Lords opposite. They complain that there might be a low turnout yet they support amendments that are likely to make the turnout lower by not having the referendum on 5 May. My position is at least as arguable as the noble Lord's.
	The noble and learned Lord said, "Don't argue. We should trust the people". I think "trust the people" is one of the most important and significant labels that we have in this country and indeed in western democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, prayed in aid the western foundation for democracy. What is the western foundation for democracy if it is not to trust the people? Yet with every single amendment noble Lords are saying, "Don't trust the people. They may not come out and vote. If they do come out and vote and they say yes they are probably wrong. Only we can decide". What is even more bewildering is that the Labour Party voted one way in the House of Commons and another in this House. No wonder I am bewildered. What is happening is bewildering.
	The charge is that we are bulldozing this Bill through, but we are about to start the seventh day in Committee and we have not yet agreed Clause 8. The House of Commons dealt with the Bill in five days in Committee. It had significant votes on every single aspect of the Bill at some stage. The Bill has been given more time and more consideration in both Houses than most of the Bills produced in the past 13 years.

Lord Soley: The noble Lord is labouring this for another reason. Does he bear in mind that his own Members in the House of Commons complained about lack of time? Not only did they complain about the lack of time, they also produced evidence from Conservative councils about lack of time. Does he also understand the crucial point here is that this is a constitutional Bill? We have a situation where a Government are changing the composition in terms of numbers of the House of Commons without either an independent assessment first or the agreement of all the parties. That is what makes the Bill much more serious than he is pretending at the moment.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does the noble Lord not recognise that Conservative Members of the other place are asking us to block the Bill because of AV? They are asking us to block the Bill.

A noble Lord: Name them.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that some Conservatives oppose the Bill. Indeed, many oppose AV. But the noble Lord, Lord Soley, says that there is no agreement among the parties. Is that not partly why we are having a referendum? The fact is that the Labour Party is divided. The leader of the Labour Party says that he is in favour of AV and he has pledged his party to be in favour of AV yet we know that that there are many Labour politicians who are opposed to AV, like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The Leader of the House says that he is not bulldozing this through, but he says that only in terms of time. He has accepted none of the amendments, many of them sensible. He shows no prospect of accepting any in the future. His leader is packing this House with 50 more coalition Peers to get this through. He calls them in from the hinterlands and backwoods to vote us down on every occasion. If the Leader of the House showed any flexibility or willingness to take on board some of the things that we said, I would take back what I said about bulldozing the Bill through.

Lord Strathclyde: We will have to agree to disagree on almost every single aspect of what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said. We are not in favour of thresholds. We are in favour of having a referendum on 5 May. The noble Lord disagrees with us. There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, shaking his head. He is not in favour of having a referendum on 5 May, which is why he and his party have consistently supported amendments which oppose that.
	It is widely known what this clause does. It provides for when the alternative vote provisions will either take effect or be repealed, and it is carefully worked out what all the provisions do. Subsection (2) provides that if there are not more yes votes than no votes in the referendum, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions. The two policies are included in this Bill because they are both crucial issues relating to how people are elected to the other place. This referendum will, for the first time, give voters a say in how they elect their MPs and the boundary proposals will mean fairer and more equal constituency boundaries can be put in place for a general election in 2015. Both these policies went through another place with clear majorities, and I very much hope that this clause will stand part.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does the noble Lord really believe that 13 per cent of the vote can be described as the will of the people?

Lord Strathclyde: I am afraid that I lost a long time ago where this 13 per cent figure came from. It might have come from the noble and learned Lord at some stage.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It came from my noble friend Lady Hayter, who is sadly not in her place, who proposed a 25 per cent threshold, which with extreme enthusiasm the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rejected. When asked whether he was therefore happy that 13 per cent could lead to the change, he said, "Yes". That is where it came from.

Lord Strathclyde: Are we not just building one hypothetical proposition onto another?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Thresholds deal only with a situation where the vote is that low. If it is higher than that, you never rely on the threshold.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The noble Lord says this is hypothetical. I have read out to the House a whole series of statistics from Manchester City Council showing that it is unlikely that it will be more than 13 per cent, based on the historic record of the elections in 2007. How can he call it hypothetical? That is what is going to happen.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I really do not think so. All the evidence points to the fact that considerably more than 13 per cent of the people will vote because we are having a referendum on 5 May, when so many other elections are taking place across the United Kingdom. That is the point. It is not just a referendum in Manchester; it is right across the United Kingdom, where no doubt the turnout will be average. But we fully expect there to be a reasonable turnout.
	Clause 8 agreed.
	Clause 9 : The alternative vote system: amendments
	Amendment 49 not moved.
	Amendment 49A
	 Moved by Lord Campbell-Savours
	49A: Clause 9, page 6, leave out line 28

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I reassure noble Lords that it is not my intention to divide the House at this hour, but my intention may well be to divide the House on Report on this amendment. It simply tweaks the supplementary vote system whereby, instead of using two Xs, it requires the use of numbering of first and second preferences on the ballot paper. I have tabled it as a probing amendment to establish whether the Government accept that my wording meets the high standards of legislative language that the law would require if the Bill were passed with those words included within it.
	A fair criticism of my amendment is that it reflects my unyielding persistence in belief in, and pursuit of, a credible electoral system as an alternative to first past the post. That is true, because I remain deeply concerned about the system which the Government have used, the Queensland AV system-the optional multipreference voting system. The advantage of this proposal is that while it might look like the supplementary vote, it is not a classic supplementary vote. You can call it the alternative vote. It gets around the language references to AV already embodied in the Bill. For those who have not been present during the course of our many references to SV and to how the system would work, for ease of reference, I refer them to col. 194 of House of Lords Hansard of 8 December. I would be ill-advised at this time of the evening once again to set out the case for my proposed system. However, I would refer the House to the contributions of Mr Christopher Chope, the Member for, I think, Chichester or Chislehurst.

Noble Lords: Christchurch.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The Member for Christchurch, in the House of Commons, who was supported by Eleanor Laing, Greg Knight, James Clappison and Robert Syms. He stated:
	"I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert 'but no preference beyond the second may be indicated".-[Official Report, Commons, 19 /10/10; col. 837.]
	He went through the use of a numbered system. I hope that the noble Lord in reply can simply clarify the position as to whether the language that I have deployed in this amendment, if it were enshrined in the Bill, would be acceptable. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What the group does is bring into the Bill both the federal Australian system, which is that you have to use all your preferences, and it also brings in the SV system, which is the one used in London. It goes back to the question as to what is the best AV system to use. The Government have made a choice as to what they think is the best AV system, which is one where you have the right to use a number of preferences, but you do not have to use them all. The second option is the one used in the federal system in Australia where you have to use them all and the third option is the one used in London which is where you identify the top two candidates from first preferences and then you divide all the second preferences from the other candidates between those two candidates. As I read the group-although the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is shaking his head-it seeks to put in those two systems.

Lord Campbell-Savours: On the ballot paper, instead of putting two crosses, as you do under the London system at the moment, you would put one and two. That is the only difference. But at least it looks like the alternative vote for those who are obsessed on the other side of the House with that system.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Does the drafting work? Is it appropriate? Why is it not in there? These are the questions for the Government. It might not necessarily be in the form or in the shape that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, put it, but as an alternative that the Government can select, after a proper consultation. Ultimately, one way of dealing with this issue would be for there to be a simple referendum on replacing first past the post with AV. Assuming that there was a yes vote-ignore the complications that we talked about earlier on-choosing which of the three systems was best could be done by the Government. There could still be compulsion in introducing AV, but there could be a proper debate with the public and in Parliament as to which is the best system, rather than the way it is done at the moment, which is that the Government have selected a particular system of AV, about which there has been no consultation and no explanation to the public. There are two questions. First, is the drafting right? Secondly, why not incorporate in the Bill the three options and allow Parliament to decide after a public consultation which is the best?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I appreciate the fact that, in introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that he did not want wish to re-rehearse the issues on the supplementary vote, which we have already been through. Was it on day three of Committee? He gave us the Hansard references. Indeed, I do not want to rehearse again the reasons why the Government do not support the supplementary vote for the purposes of the Bill that were outlined by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I do not think that the House would welcome being detained at present.
	We believe that the noble Lord's amendments would limit voters' choice in expressing preferences for the candidates who would be standing for election, as they would be able to express a preference for only two candidates. Our preference, if I may put it that way, is that there should be more optional preferences that can be exercised by voters without any compulsion to vote for each candidate.
	There is clearly a difference of view about the type of system that should be used. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that it was not the classic supplementary vote but perhaps the supplementary vote with cosmetic-

Lord Campbell-Savours: Tweaked.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The supplementary vote, but tweaked. That does not commend itself to the Government, who have indicated that their wish is for the system that I understand goes under the optional preferences. The noble Lord has indicated that he is not pressing his amendments, bit I have no doubt that we will return to this.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The Minister did not deal with my central question and the reason why I moved the amendment. In terms of legislative language, is it in good order?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Certainly not in order to achieve the objective that we as a Government wish. No doubt, however, it would achieve the objective that the noble Lord wishes. If he has any suggestions about the drafting of other options, we would be happy to hear from him. Still, so far as I am aware, the amendment would probably achieve what the noble Lord wishes to achieve but certainly not what the Government wish to achieve.

Lord Campbell-Savours: At this stage, on the basis of the response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 49A withdrawn.
	Amendments 49B to 50 not moved.
	Amendment 51
	 Moved by Lord Lipsey
	51: Clause 9, page 6, line 30, at end insert-
	"( ) Where a voter marks a ballot with a cross against the name of a candidate, that cross shall count as if the voter had placed the number 1 opposite the name of that candidate.""

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady McDonagh, who is sorry that she cannot be in her place at this stage of the evening. I was rather amazed to have had an impact with my previous amendment and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this one.
	It is a perfectly simple amendment. It does not go to the heart of the Bill, the core of the coalition agreement or anything like that. It simply says that if someone marks just one preference when they go into the polling booth and, instead of putting 1, they mark it X, that should count. I do not want to labour the point because I see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, nodding encouragingly. We are in agreement on a lot of things here-we want the maximum number of valid votes in the referendum, as does he-so it is good from that point of view.

Lord Rooker: I do not understand this. My noble friend is a supporter of AV. Those of us who have been in the other place-that is, those who have been to an election count, and I do not know whether my noble friend has-know that, under the present first-past-the-post system, if someone puts a 1 against a candidate, that counts as a vote because it is a clear indication. So it is bound to be the case under AV that if you put an X against a name, it will count as a vote; the normal rules allow for that.
	I thought that the idea of this was to persuade people to use second choices. This is where the con comes in of it being the "optional" AV system. There will be a campaign out there of people saying, "You don't have to bother with all these numbers-just put an X against my name". That is what it is all about. The argument that AV gets rid of tactical voting is fraudulent, as I hope my noble friend will admit.

Lord Lipsey: I enjoyed listening to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made under the guise of an intervention, but I am making a perfectly narrow point. In the Bill as drafted an X would not count, and under the amendment that I would like to make an X would count. I must say an X is about the only bit of our electoral system that is truly traditional. It goes way back to the times when many people could not write numbers. First past the post is not the only system that has been in use in Britain. If you look back to the last century there were the university seats and two-member seats in the cities. Nothing else is traditional except the use of X. I am here in the guise of a traditionalist trying to preserve the tradition of the X. The final thing I would say is that, although most people have no difficulty with 1, 2 and 3, older voters and others have perhaps become accustomed to a certain way of casting their vote, and I do not think there is any need to force them to change their mind if they just want to put an X in the right place.
	I do not think this amendment will benefit the cause that I hope to see prevail at the election when it comes. People who use X may well not be the best informed voters, and certainly the best informed voters will vote for AV, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, may say. It may not benefit my cause but I do think it is a democratic advantage to allow an X and I cannot see any argument why not.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will find it possible to accept this amendment. It does seem to be eminently sensible in that people have been putting Xs on ballot papers for a very long time and it is conceivable that they might continue to do so. I am not totally reassured by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that there is all this flexibility among returning officers. You might not find that this flexibility is there. I would be more comfortable if this was in the Bill and it was made absolutely clear that an X was just as valid as a 1 and vice versa. This is a very sensible amendment which all sides of the House should feel very comfortable about supporting.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I have to say to my very good and noble friend Lord Lipsey that I am totally and unconditionally opposed to this amendment. It completely undermines the intention behind those who are pursuing this legislation and indeed this system. It defeats the objective. If all the elector has to do is put a cross on the ballot paper, under this system it will invite precisely what has happened in Australia, which was referred to in that article by Rallings and Thrasher which I drew to the attention of the House a couple of weeks ago. They talk in Australia about people plumping. If you allow people just to use an X on the ballot paper, as my noble friend has said, canvassers-in particular Liberal Democrat canvassers, who are always masters of tactical voting-will go from door to door saying, "Don't worry, don't bother, we know it's complicated. All you have got to do is put an X against the candidate you want", completely undermining the system. I am surprised my noble friend did not see this problem inherent in the system when he decided to move this amendment. I do hope that the Government do not fall for this one, because if they do and then say that they have started to be flexible by giving way on amendments, that is not the kind of flexibility-

Lord McAvoy: Does my noble friend not realize that he has a problem with the language he is using? He spoke about "allowing" the voters to put an X. "Allowing" is strange language to use. They are going to force voters to vote a certain way or somehow they are invalid, undemocratic or they just do not count. "Allowing the voters" is strange to me.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Behind my noble friend's intervention is his support for my noble friend Lord Lipsey. That is what he is arguing when he argues about the word "allow". My noble friend will want to put his case to the House in support of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I hope the Government will not accept this amendment or anything resembling it.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I support my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The elegant speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, was a powerful argument in favour of the amendment. I was not convinced by the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and of some people who from a sedentary position said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is unnecessary. At all the counts that I have been to, where an X was not used-perhaps a 1, a tick or a signature was used-the votes are counted as doubtful. The candidates and the agents gather round as the returning officer goes through the count of the doubtful votes saying, "Yes, that is accepted" or "No, that is rejected", and so on. Does that sound familiar to those others who have been candidates? It was certainly my experience.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is making it absolutely clear that if in this election an X is put on the ballot paper, it should count. It is then beyond peradventure or doubt. It is a clear indication of preference. I might have suggested some other indications of preference, such as a tick or some other indication that the candidate who has the mark next to their name-it could be a cross, a tick or another positive mark, as well as a 1-is the person chosen. I have the greatest admiration for my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. He and I have been friends since we were elected together all those years ago and we have worked closely together. I say to him that I do not think it would be the Liberal Democrats but the Tories and us who would go around saying, "Put an X next to our man", or, as an old friend of mine used to say, "Just put a kiss next to the guy you like". That is a little old fashioned, although I see the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, likes the thought of it, which gives me some encouragement. I would certainly support it. This reminds me of the old story about people who would come in and sign an X when you said, "Would you sign here?". I knew someone who put two Xs. I said, "Wait a minute. What's the second X for?". He said, "Oh, that's my PhD".

Lord McAvoy: I rise briefly to support my noble friend's amendment. X has been around for a long time-not just in current elections or the past century's elections. The amendment means that if we allowed people to put an X and everyone knew that, the various people who put ticks, 1s, kisses, sweethearts and all that sort of thing would then know that putting an X is a recognised way of voting. My noble friend is absolutely right about people not being able to read and write. I have my grandfather's wedding certificate-or his wedding lines, as they are called in Scotland. It says, "Bernard McAvoy: his mark here". The mark is an X. If it was good enough for him, it will be good enough for me and my noble friend.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which is entirely appropriate. I do not quite follow the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. Presumably a candidate could just go around inviting supporters to put a 1 beside their name and leave it at that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is being a modern-day Viscount Simon of Glaisdale, whom I remember opposing amendments that had been introduced for the avoidance of doubt on the grounds that there was no doubt to be avoided in the first place. However, in this case the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has raised an appropriate doubt that reflects people's experiences. The amendment would be extremely valuable for that purpose. There is one other point. Particularly if it is a transitional period, many voters who have not got used to the new system might put an X against a name. If there are a large number of those, it would undermine the legitimacy of the system if all those votes were then discarded.

Lord Rooker: I want to go home, to be honest. I did not realise how serious my noble friend was about his amendment. I know he supports AV, which I do not; I support PR. It is not our job to sow confusion in the ballot system, which is what this amendment would do. The Electoral Commission will spend a fortune distributing leaflets to every dwelling, informing the voters about the change in the system. They will not be talking about using Xs. I gave the example from my own experience. As every ex-Member of Parliament will know from being at a count, it is the indication of a candidate by the voter that counts. The officers have a whole list of charts, showing what you can put on a ballot paper, what counts and what does not. That is how you get your spoilt votes. Not every vote is like it is. The public do not understand this but the system works and I have every confidence in it.
	What if the voters put an X against one and, because of all the publicity that has gone on, they put a 2 against someone else? How do you know the X is a 1 in that case? Only an X alone on the ballot paper would indicate a preference for a candidate. That, however, is the very antithesis of what we are trying to do with the alternative vote; it is not my preferred choice but it is a choice against first past the post. I ask the Government not to put this amendment in the Bill because custom and practice dictates, with returning officers, that the vote would count. This would actually sow confusion. Are we going to send back to the other place a Bill that we got from them and say, "By the way, we want you to use Xs."? Come on, that is absolutely preposterous.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble friend did not say that we want to use Xs, just that it might happen that way. My noble friend Lord Rooker says that it is very clear that a returning officer has all these charts, but that is not my experience. I will give him an illustration and ask whether he thinks that this should have been counted as a vote for me. Next to my name-and there is nothing else on the ballot paper-someone has written HMFC. Now, is that a vote for me?

Lord Rooker: No, because no words are allowed. That is part of the rules. A tick will do if it clearly indicates a preference, but words are not allowed so it would not count.

Lord Lipsey: If my noble friend wants to go home, he should not intervene in the debate. If he would care to read new Section 37A(1)(a) in Clause 9(1), it changes the present situation whereby returning officers can take any old mark and says that there has to be a 1, which is all I am trying to change.

Lord Rooker: Well, I do not agree with it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have a lot of choices for the Government here in what they can do. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rightly draws our attention to new Section 37A in Clause 9(1), which says:
	"A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with ... the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter's first preference",
	and continues,
	"if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter's second preference, and so on".
	I understand that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is designed to deal with the situation in which there is only one X on the ballot paper. There is no X, 2, 3 or 4, nor is there X against more than one name. Under the amendment, it would not be possible to count that as a vote in favour or a first preference for the person against whom the X is granted. You would need to be an idiot not to believe that the X against one name and one name only is the first preference.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is an expert in all matters, says that it is perfectly obvious that the returning officer would treat that as voting for your first preference. Well, that would not be consistent with Clause 9(1); I do not have the noble Lord's experience to know how returning officers might deal with it, but I suspect that some would deal with it in some way and some would deal with it in another way. It seems right that if you put an X against only one name, as your intention is so clear the right course for the Bill is that it should reflect that course. I do not think that the drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, quite achieves what he wants because it says:
	"Where a voter marks a ballot with a cross against the name of a candidate, that cross shall count as if the voter had placed the number 1 opposite the name of that candidate".
	That does not deal with the situation in which he has X against more than one name or with the situation in which he has put X, 2, 3, 4 or 5, but this is Committee and the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was absolutely clear. It was understood by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, by me and by everyone else in a particular way. I do not accept the actual drafting but I strongly support the intention behind the amendment. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does my noble and learned friend not recognise that it completely undermines the intention behind the introduction of the AV system?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours-and I respect him greatly on this matter-he overstated the effect of this and I also think that if in 2015 there is a system of alternative votes, some people who have been voting for a very long time might well think that the thing to do is to put an X against their favoured candidate. That should be treated as their first-

Lord Rooker: Look, I can guarantee that somewhere in the current election rules for first past the post, the instructions are that a voter places an X against the name. That is the reverse of this proposal. Yet, if voters put a 1 or a tick which is clearly indicated and is not applied to more than one name, that vote will carry for that person. The cross would count in extreme circumstances and that does not need to be put in the Bill. Doing that would send all the wrong signals to the voters when we are moving away from first past the post.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There now appears to be agreement that we all want an X against one name only to count as the first preference. The only issue appears to be whether or not one puts that in the Bill or in guidance. If one is changing the system and saying that the way you vote is by marking a 1, I should have thought that the sensible way to do that was by making it clear in the Bill. I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and, above all, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I hope, although I accept that redrafting is required, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who has proved to be a gem, if I may say so, can see that.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: In response to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has indicated that I might send him home happy. I hope that in the spirit of the remarks I am about to make he will still go to his Christmas retreat a happy man. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the amendment as drafted would not necessarily meet the point, but I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and other noble Lords who have supported him, some clear reassurance.
	The amendment is unnecessary because in Schedule 10 to the Bill, on page 294-which I hope we will get to one day-it is stated at paragraph 6(2C) that under rule 47:
	"A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which ... is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but ... is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an arabic numeral), shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number (written as an arabic numeral) had been marked instead".
	I hope that that addresses the issue. If there is one X, it will be very clear.
	The important point is that the returning officer has discretion to make a judgment as to whether a clear intention has been made. That is why two Xs would not demonstrate a clear intention. I believe that one X would demonstrate a clear intention and that is provided for in the rules.

Lord McAvoy: In the past, I have seen a cross on someone's name, which has been interpreted as, "We don't want this one, and I am ruling them out". Perhaps the situation is not quite as clear as the noble and learned Lord genuinely thinks.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: It is a matter for the returning officers to determine ultimately whether they believe an intention has been indicated.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I thought that the general agreement around the House was that if there is an X against only one name, we want the returning officer to say yes. That is a vote for a first preference. If you are saying that X is okay, but you are leaving it to the returning officer, that seems to be inconsistent. Why not put it in the Bill?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: There may have been a misunderstanding. I wanted to make a particular point to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, who said that an X had been put through a name, rather than against it. There was a suggestion that in such cases, far from wanting a candidate, the voter did not want them. Those are circumstances where it would be invidious to suggest what would happen. Certainly when an X is marked against a name, it is clear from the provision in the Bill that the vote would be valid.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is concerned -and I understand his concern-that this might lead to undermining the system. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who indicated that if there was a yes vote in the referendum, in the run-up to a general election in 2015 there would be advertising making the position clear. There were indications that that actually happened in the Scottish elections where a single transferrable vote requiring numbered preferences was used.
	The night is drawing on but perhaps I may relate one small anecdote. I stood in the first ever European election in the south of Scotland and I have the dubious distinction of being the first person ever to lose their deposit in a European election. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Alderdice will recall that the 1979 European elections in Northern Ireland were carried out on the basis of the single transferable vote, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom they were carried out on the basis of first past the post. A corner of Galloway in the south of Scotland received Ulster TV, on which the advertising encouraged people to use their vote by marking 1, 2 and 3. In several polling stations in that part of Galloway a number of ballot papers were marked with a 1, 2 and 3, although the election was on the basis of first past the post. However, there was agreement that the number 1 on a ballot paper would be accepted as a valid vote.
	Let us not underestimate the voters. There will be ample advertising to indicate that the nature of the election will be a preferential vote system. I do not believe that that will undermine the election or that it will give rise to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

Lord Campbell-Savours: On the question of undermining, has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, consulted his election guru sitting near to him on his right and asked him what he thinks the effect of this would be in terms of undermining the AV system, which he has been advocating so passionately over recent weeks? He is sitting there and has not said a word. It would be very interesting to see whether he is prepared to get up and advocate this when he knows that Liberal Democrats more widely would be opposed to it.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I do not think that anyone is advocating this-in fact, the opposite is true. We want to make sure that there is a proper advertising campaign for the system. I hope that I have said sufficient and that what is already in the Bill is enough-that is, if someone places an X against a candidate's name, the intention will be clear. It will be taken as being the equivalent of putting a 1 and the vote will count.

Lord Lipsey: The Minister is in such a jolly mood that I am reluctant in any way to spoil his anticipation of hogmanay by cavilling at his remarks. However, I should say that the last time a Minister pointed to a schedule to the Bill as being the right place to deal with a certain issue, I read that schedule for the first time and found that five amendments badly needed to be made to it. They now feature on the Marshalled List and will be debated by us in the new year.
	I have heard what the noble Lord has said and I have looked at the schedule to which he referred. I cannot help thinking that there is a bit of a clash between the words in the first part of the Bill and those in the schedule. A helpful way forward-I suggest this to the Minister with due humility-might be if the Association of Electoral Administrators were to write to him and he made available to the House a statement saying that the association would interpret the Bill as it stands with those two provisions in the way that he has suggested they should be interpreted-namely, that a mark against one candidate will be accepted. If he were able to make that small concession, I would happily drop this amendment and not resurrect it on Report.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord is inviting the electoral registration officers to write to me and clearly, if they do, I shall make what they say available. The schedule states:
	"A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which ... is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate"-
	I think I would include within that putting an X or even a tick against a person's name-
	"shall be treated in the same way as if the appropriate number ... had been marked".
	I hope that the wording there is clear but obviously the electoral registration officers may wish to clarify that. I suspect that it will be a while before we get to Schedule 10, although perhaps not as long as might otherwise be the case.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The noble and learned Lord mentions an X or a tick, but would even HMFC in a maroon heart be acceptable?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am very doubtful about that last one but I could not possibly make a decision on it.

Lord Lipsey: I think that the noble and learned Lord would do well to try to get something that nails this point once and for all before we reach the schedule. We have been discussing it for 26 minutes tonight and we can discuss it for another 26 minutes at a later stage, whereas it is well within his powers to deal with it by getting in writing from the appropriate electoral registration officers a clear statement of how they read the Bill. I think that it can be read in two ways, although I accept that his way of reading it is one. With that, and given the hour and the imminence of the festivities, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 51 withdrawn.
	Amendment 51A not moved.
	Amendments 51B and 51C had been retabled as Amendments 52B and 52C.
	Amendment 52
	 Moved by Lord Rooker
	52: Clause 9, page 7, line 2, after "reallocated" insert "by the proportion of its preference (that is to say if the candidate was ranked 3 then one third of a vote, if ranked 4 then one quarter of a vote and so on)"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before we come to consider my noble friend's amendment, I ought to advise the House that it is customary that we conclude our business at 10 pm, other than by agreement.
	I was happy in discussions with the usual channels to agree to the House going until taxis. Taxis is commonly understood to be 10.40 pm. We are now at 11.10 pm and this would be an appropriate moment for the House to draw its proceedings to a conclusion, given the inclement weather, among other good reasons.
	I do hope that is going to be the case, and I was rather looking to the government Benches to move that the House now be resumed. It would be very helpful to the House if the government Benches indicated exactly what they do intend, because there are many people at work this evening in the House and we have a number of Members here listening to the debate. The agreement was to taxis; we are now well past that point.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we seem to be getting on very well. Let us just finish the clause.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is a fairly corrupt voting system. I am not going to go over the details of what we discussed in the earlier clauses; this amendment essentially deals with the second preference of the losing candidate.
	We had a speech earlier on, which may have been from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, but was certainly from the Conservative side, which quoted what Winston Churchill had said about the alternative vote and what made it a very false system-that the second preference of the voter who had voted for the least popular candidate was used to create the winner. On balance it looks like you are giving two votes to voters who choose the least popular candidate. You are not giving two votes to the voter who chooses the most popular candidate, or the second most popular candidate, but the voter who chooses the least popular candidate is effectively given two votes.
	I do not think that is fair, and we have to address this issue of using AV, which the Lib Dems now appear to love. I have visions. I have been listening today to the debates, which will not get reported, but I cannot wait to watch the television studio performances in March, April and May of the leading lights of the coalition Government as these provisions are dissected by the Paxmans of this world. They are paying no attention to it now-and I am not complaining about that-but who, when it comes to the minutiae, will start to think back and say, "Oh, bloody hell, they raised this in the Lords and we never listened to what they were saying".
	On this one I am giving you another lifeboat; what to do with that least popular vote that looks unfair to the public. Why should someone have two votes? It is clear that the alternative vote can be used to ensure that every voter can influence the results in a way that is not possible under first past the post. I freely accept that it can be used. Under this Bill, however, it is not possible to claim that every voter will be able to do it because it is an optional system. You still have the problem of what you do at the end with the vote that gets transferred.
	Why should the second vote of the person who has voted for the least popular candidate have the same value as the first vote? This is not original; I read it in some academic text somewhere, although I cannot remember where and I have not been able to go back to it. In my view it is quite simple: why should it have the same value? Why not put the value on it that the voter, or the voters as a whole, created for that candidate? So, if you have five candidates-one, two, three, four, five-and the fifth one is coming out, the second preferences for that candidate are worth a fifth of a vote to whoever they have chosen among the others. If there are only four candidates, you give them a quarter of the vote. If there are eight or nine candidates, and the bottom one finishes ninth, then the second preference is worth a ninth of a vote to the candidate that they have chosen for it. That to me seems fair. You are not giving people two votes, which is what you are effectively doing under the present system, but you are giving them the vote in proportion-that word might not go down too well here at the moment-to where they came on the ballot paper.
	I think that has a fairness appeal to it. It is much fairer than giving people two votes. It seems obvious, it is fair, it is practical and it avoids the central criticisms levelled against the alternative vote, leaving aside whether it is compulsory to use all your preferences or not. One of the central criticisms of it is-let us put names on it-if the BNP candidate comes at the bottom. We may have a view about people who want to put the BNP candidate as their first choice, but why should those people's second choice have the same value as their first choice? It does not really matter who came bottom, but that is the reality we are coming to. That is a very serious criticism against the alternative vote. It was made by Churchill, it was quoted in this House and I think it has some value. So let us do something about it.
	My suggestion does not affect the Bill, the date or any preparations for the referendum, it does not affect the day; it affects only the way you count the votes. That is all. In that case, it might take a little bit longer. I know someone is going to say, "Oh, we can't have decimal points on the vote". Why not? We can count. People understand decimal points. Talking about voters not understanding things, I had people who could not write, but they could fill in a full perm on a football coupon though, and the women could read a knitting pattern, so do not talk to me about people not understanding. They understand the value whether it has a decimal point or not. It is either worth more or worth less. It is fair and very simple, and I offer it at this point in time-23.17. I do not mind when it comes into play. I would like to have some really good arguments about why we should not do this because basically, as is known, I prefer a PR system However, I am trying to make this present system, if this is what is going to be driven through by Parliament-I do not say that pejoratively-fairer to the voter and easier to explain in those television studios when you are on the third degree. I can say one thing for sure: this referendum will not be as popular in the television studios as Mr Clegg was in those first question and answer sessions. The heat will be on and they will be taking apart the system, looking at the nitty-gritty, looking at all the contradictions about what can happen with an optional AV system, which we have explored here over the past six days. The central criticism is the one about the second preference for the least-popular candidate, so let us not give them a full vote. Let us give them the vote where they came on the ballot paper. I beg to move.

Lord McAvoy: My Lords, the past seven minutes have illustrated to me that people who are obsessed by systems really twist themselves into all sorts of knots because they have a flair for it. My noble friend Lord Rooker certainly has a flair: a flair for hard work, a flair for mastering systems and a flair for coming up with solutions to other people's systems. Quite frankly, I understood about one-tenth or one-twentieth of what was said, and I cannot fill in a three cross treble line pool or a betting line or whatever it is. I am just not able to do it.
	This is what happens when the pro-systems people think that changing the system is the answer to all democracy's problems. They will twist and turn, go up blind alleys and around corners and all the rest of it. It sounds absolutely brilliant, but despite what my noble friend says, I do not think the average person will understand it.
	I have never understood the obsession with PR or AV. The system of first past the post, with whatever imperfections people like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours can show in it, is tried, trusted and people understand it. Once you get into different systems, you have unforeseen consequences. It is okay for folk to say "We'll legislate for that the next time" or "We'll iron out that glitch in the system", but all they do is twist themselves into further knots. The elections to the Scottish Parliament had unforeseen consequences because we had the Leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, wangling away, despite the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, being present, I think, is some sort of administrative role. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.
	Alex Salmond was allowed to put himself at the top of each ballot paper-"Alex Salmond for First Minister". The situation in Scotland was that the SNP did not win the election. Thanks to the daft list system, it finished up with one MSP more than the Labour Party, which allowed it to claim under a convoluted and twisted voting system that it had somehow won the right for Mr Salmond to be First Minister. Not satisfied with that, in the 2004 election the Labour Party made the mistake of indulging its Liberal partners in the coalition-what was a genuine coalition in Scotland, not a collaboration like we have at the moment. They were on opposite sides of the Chamber. But the Labour Party allowed itself to be blackmailed, cajoled-call it what you like. Almost within hours of the election result, the Labour Party at Holyrood had caved in and given the Liberals PR for local government.
	They have still got that system until it is changed. The candidates are listed in alphabetical order. My understanding of it is tangled because I kept back from Holyrood. I did not particularly want to get involved in MSP matters, but it affected the political party I am committed to. As far as I can recall-again the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will correct me if I am wrong-the Liberals and others, mainly the SNP, blocked the situation whereby there was a suggestion that the political candidates should be put into alphabetical order within party blocks on the ballot paper. I accept that I am vague on this but I blame the Liberals for everything else so I might as well blame them for this. Folk looked at the paper and said, "There is the Labour candidate and that is the Liberal candidate, so that is who I am going to vote for", instead of starting at the top alphabetically. The debacle of 2007 was confusing. It was caused by exactly the same proponents of systems rather than democracy and appealing to people.
	There was a situation in Rutherglen and Hamilton West where a candidate had been a councillor for four years. She was an outstanding candidate, but she had the unfortunate handicap that her surname began with the letter "O". She was at the bottom of the ballot paper and she lost her seat. Even the local Liberals felt guilty, which was quite an unusual occurrence. They said to her that they were sorry that she was the one to lose out to the system. What happened was that the Labour Party won two of the three seats in that ward. The Labour candidate who won was a new candidate in the area, a good councillor in his former area, and he is now a good councillor in his current area. But he ended up with almost double the votes that the poor candidate with the surname starting with "O" got, and therefore she lost out to, I think, the SNP candidate, who has also turned out to be a good ward councillor.
	What happened there was an unforeseen consequence of this fanatical obsession for tinkering with systems. I shall not persuade anyone who is PR or AV-obsessed, in the same way as they will not convince me, and that is fine, but, given the convoluted nature of my noble friend's amendment-it is like a Gordian knot-I hope the public will copy Alexander and put a sword through it.
	I say to your Lordships' House-not in a partisan sense but because I genuinely feel it-that these systems do no service to the public: they confuse people; they are for the anoraks. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not win but, when the anoraks start to win and the amendments come forward for AV and for trying to make AV work, you end up in a mess. I am totally opposed to my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has a powerful point, which I shall attempt to put into two sentences. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, is not right; this is not complicated. It may be complicated for the people who count the votes-a point which I expect the Minister to comment on-but it is not complicated for the voter. It is the same as it would have been under the system put forward by the Government-you just put your preferences.
	The noble Lord said that when the votes are counted they will be given a weighting. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with AV. It is completely wrong that the winner of an election may be determined-and he used the quote from Churchill that I used-by the least worthwhile votes of the least worthwhile candidate. They may well be votes for the BNP or for an extremist party, but it is wrong that in some cases the outcome should be determined by the second preferences of the bottom candidate. The system put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for addressing this by weighting the votes according to where they come on the list seems a logical answer. Whether it would be workable, I do not know-no doubt we will be told that it would be too complicated for the counting officer, and that may be so-but it illustrates what is so grotesque and ridiculous about the system that is put forward.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble friend puts forward an interesting argument. This is an area on which I did some work in 1989 when we were designing the supplementary vote-we called it "weighting"-and a number of the scenarios that we ran through lengthy computer runs were based on a reduced value being given to subsequent votes under the supplementary vote.
	I wish to ask my noble friend whether there might be a slight difference between what we were working on and what he was working on. When he moved the amendment, he referred to the value given to these additional preferences being based on the position on the ballot paper. I presume he meant that if a candidate was in seventh position and yet was the third preference of a particular elector, they would have only one-seventh of the value, whereas under the system on which we worked in 1989 they would have one-third of the value. Can my noble friend clarify the position? If he is working on the basis that there are seven candidates and the candidate at the bottom-candidate Peter-is the third preference of the voter but gets one-seventh of the vote for the third preference, I would not be altogether in favour of it. But if it is simply his intention that the first preferences of every voter should have 100 per cent of the value, that second preferences should have 50 per cent, that third preferences should have 33.3 per cent and fourth preferences 25 per cent, there is great value to the amendment.
	I understand that a number of academics have also worked on AV and supplementary vote systems since 1989 to establish whether weighting votes in this way would work. The only problem that arises if one does that is that the minority candidates-in this case, the Liberal Democrats say that they would gain more seats under AV-would not gain as many seats. Although AV tends only marginally to be more proportional-it some circumstances, it can be considerably more so-the effect of weighting votes in the way being suggested will be to reduce the likelihood of outsider candidates winning seats.
	My noble friend Lord McAvoy was worried about the anoraks. I apologise to him for being one of those rather pathetic creatures, but electoral systems is a particularly interesting subject. It is the sort of thing you go to bed at night thinking about. I welcome the amendment moved by my noble friend and look forward to the response of the Minister.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I very rarely go to bed at night thinking about alternative voting systems, I must confess. Like the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, I am a great believer in the first past the post system. It may not be perfect, but I suspect that it is rather better than any other system that anybody might like to introduce. Having said that, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has to be right. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that, if you want a fairer system, you should do something to make sure that everybody's second votes under an alternative vote system do not all count for the same and that they are graded.
	The problem is that, in its wisdom, the House has decided that we should hold the referendum on the same day as the local elections. I have argued in previous debates that it does not give us a very good opportunity to explain to the country an extremely complex change in our voting system when we are trying to hold local elections and elections for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly at the same time. I hate to say it to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but to try to explain his even more complex way of doing the alternative vote would take even longer. I suggest that, before we even entertain the idea, we agree that the vote should be held on a different day. I was quite relaxed about the referendum being held, let us say, a month after the local authority elections. If we are going to go down the path suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, perhaps we need an even bigger gap between the local elections and the referendum, because an awful lot of explaining of this major change in our electoral system will have to be done to the country.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Does the noble Lord really believe-I am sure that he does not-that the country will even understand AV as it is proposed in the Bill? I have no doubt that 99.9 per cent of the population will not have the first idea how AV works, so this additional little complication will be neither here nor there.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I accept that there will be great difficulty explaining to the country what the implications of the AV vote will be, but that is why the referendum should be held on a separate day. I am convinced that it will be extremely difficult to explain to the country what the AV vote is about. If it is held on the same day as the local elections and all the other elections, it will be virtually impossible. People will not understand the implications of any different voting system if we stick it in on the same day as the local elections. However, that is what the House has decided to do, in its wisdom, and we are therefore in a very difficult situation, making the whole business of what the vote is even more complicated than it was already.
	I am just amazed at how calm everybody seems to be in this House, collectively, about allowing the Bill to go through and allowing the referendum to be held on the same day as the local elections, which will fundamentally change the whole way that this country votes, when I think that we mostly agree that people will not really understand the implications of what they are doing when they vote in that referendum.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, this is by no means the first time that I have been not asleep at this hour due to the joys of debating the merits of AV and so on, but there is something still more exciting to come, because before the Bill is finished I confidently predict that at one or two in the morning we shall get on to the relative merits of d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague and the three Imperiali largest-remainder formulae, a matter on which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours will no doubt illuminate the House as he has on this. I cannot support, however, the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Rooker any more than he could support the one put forward by me earlier.
	It takes me back to the days, the happy days indeed, when I was sitting on the Jenkins committee. We got many, many proposals on the Jenkins committee for various systems of weighted voting. D'Hondt as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with his great knowledge of these matters surely knows, is not a weighted voting system. All the many proposals on weighted voting systems had one factor in common; they were invariably written in green ink and therefore we on the commission did not have to spend as long considering them as we might otherwise.
	There are two reasons of substance why this amendment should be rejected. The first is that Churchill's neat phrase does not reflect the reality in many voters' minds. It is not true that the most important choice for voters is who they put first and who they put second and they do not care who they put sixth and who they put seventh. If you take my case, in a constituency where there were some serious candidates and towards the bottom of the ones with a chance there was the Democratic Socialist Crosland Labour-affiliated candidate and, on the other hand, the British National Party candidate. I would feel extremely strongly that I preferred the first of those options, whatever I was doing further up the list between those candidates who really had a chance. In reality, there is no way of measuring the strength of people's preferences, or the amount of thought they have put into them, and it is therefore better to treat all preferences, as AV does, as of equal weight.
	The second argument has been touched on and it concerns complexity.

Lord Campbell-Savours: When my noble friend goes into the polling booth and casts his first preference for Labour and he might be tempted to cast his third preference for the Liberal Democrats, is he, in his own mind, giving that third preference the same weight, when he votes for the Liberal Democrat as he would to Labour, his first preference?

Lord Lipsey: It depends on the circumstances in the particular constituency. In my own constituency of Brecon and Radnor, there are very real choices to be made, due to the fact that the Labour candidate, alas, is not a front-running candidate in that seat. That is a choice that I hope to avoid having to make when AV has come into being and I can put my first preference first and then my other preferences in their order without any danger of defeating my preferred second choice by voting for my preferred first choice.
	I was going on to say that I think the complexity of the Rooker system and the sheer difficulty of explaining it counts very heavily against it. I do not take the view that voters need to understand absolutely everything about voting systems in order to cast their vote, any more than, when I get into my car and turn the key, I require to know all about how the engine works before I drive off. I need to know certain things, such as how to steer, but I do not need to know how the engine works. There are degrees of complexity and, frankly, the Rooker system would be simply impossible to explain. I do not think many people would buy the explanation that was being given. I am sure my noble friend did not have this even in the back of his mind, but one is tempted to think that a complication of this kind is a well-designed sabotage bomb to make sure that the referendum on AV is lost. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment and hope that the House will not support it tonight.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: One of the advantages of the Leader of the House effectively throwing the Companion to the Standing Orders out of the window is that we have this extra time to contemplate voting systems. My understanding has always been that you think what outcome you would prefer and then choose a voting system to get that outcome. That is why the Liberals have always campaigned and pushed for PR and the single transferable vote, because they want to have more power and influence.
	While my colleagues have been talking about the theory, I have been looking at what might happen in practice if we had an election for the leader of the group of Labour Peers on this side of the House. There are five candidates, Campbell-Savours, Falconer, Foulkes, McAvoy, and Rooker. Those were the only five candidates put forward. Alphabetically, Campbell-Savours is number one, Falconer is number two, Foulkes number three, McAvoy number four and Rooker number five. There are 40 electors. Some of them are not here tonight. They are around somewhere and will come in if necessary. If we were to carry out this election under first past the post, the result might be Campbell-Savours 10, Falconer nine, Foulkes eight, McAvoy seven and Rooker six. In that case, Campbell-Savours would be elected and would be our leader. That is the system that we all know. Campbell-Savours would be welcome and we would accept him as our leader and worship him and follow his every lead. He would carry out that leadership with his usual kindness, wisdom and grace.
	However, we could have accepted one form of the alternative vote, which from my recollection of what my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Rooker said in previous speeches, is the Australian federal system in which everyone has to vote one, two, three, four, five. Then we might get this result: 10, nine, eight, seven, six on the first vote. Then Rooker is eliminated and all of his votes would naturally go to Falconer. Noble Lords have seen that in the debates that have taken place. Falconer would now be leading with 15 votes. Campbell-Savours would have 10, Foulkes would have 8 and McAvoy would have seven.

Lord McAvoy: Does my noble friend realise that he is starting to give me a bigger headache than my noble friend Lord Rooker?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: It will all become clear.
	McAvoy is now eliminated. His seven votes are distributed. Four go to Falconer and three go to Foulkes because he cannot quite make up his mind. He is hedging his bets and sees the way the wind is blowing. That leaves 10 to Campbell-Savours-he has not attracted any more votes-19 to Falconer and 11 to Foulkes. But supporters of Campbell-Savours, who is a Foulkes fan, give all their votes to Foulkes, who gets 21 and Falconer only 19. The person who was the third preference is elected. That is the sort of thing that can happen with the alternative vote, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has pointed out on previous occasions.
	So my noble friend Lord Rooker has come up with the most imaginative suggestion. It may be complicated for the counters, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said. We do not need to worry about the counters, because that will all be done electronically-and we all know how efficient computer systems are at producing election results. Go back to the Scottish elections of 2007 and you will know how really efficient they are. So we do not have to worry about that. We do not really have to worry about having to explain it to the electorate, because they will just vote in the same way-one, two, three, four, five. It is a much more logical system. I agree with my noble friends who have supported my noble friend Lord Rooker-your second preference should not have the same weight as your first preference, and your fourth or fifth preference should certainly not have the same weight as the first preference. On the basis of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker, he would certainly never get elected on my five choices. I have not had the time yet to work out who would get elected on the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker, but later on-today or tomorrow-I shall be able to give noble Lords the outcome in relation to that.
	I do not think that we need to worry about how complicated it is for the counters-

Lord McAvoy: I do not want to sound like an intellectual anorak, although I am probably not in any danger of that, but it does not gel with me when people say that the electorate do not need to know. Surely there is an intellectual and principled basis that the public should own, have knowledge of and fully understand all aspects of any system that elects a political representative.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Absolutely. That is why I do not support this system. The reason I support the amendment is because it makes the alternative vote system look so ridiculous that we come back to first past the post.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one can only think that this is like Heathrow at the moment. First we are told by the Government Chief Whip that we are going to go on till taxis, then we are told that we are going to do the next amendment-and then the Leader of the House says that we are going to go on to the end of this particular clause. So information is short. I look across at the Benches opposite and am glad to see that Ministers are using the seating to try to get a bit of a snooze in while this debate is going on. I imagine that quite shortly blankets will be produced for people across the Benches.
	This is quite an important amendment. The need for it comes from the fact that, as a result of it being a compulsory referendum, you need to resolve issues about how the alternative vote system works. My noble friend Lord Rooker raises the question that your third, fourth and fifth preferences may not be treated with the same enthusiasm as your first and second preferences and he deals to some extent-although he eschews this in what he says-with the problem that your third, fourth and fifth preference may include unacceptable extremist parties. We do not want their second preferences to determine the vote in the election. We have to address this issue if there is going to be a referendum. We have to address it on the basis that, whether or not you like AV, if the AV referendum wins, how we deal with the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker will determine how we deal with second, third and fourth preferences.
	I can see the intellectual force of the position taken by the great intellectual, my noble friend Lord Rooker, but it seems to me to lead to the following problems. First, it says,
	"reallocated ... by the proportion of its preference (that is to say if the candidate was ranked 3 then one third of a vote, if ranked 4 then one quarter of a vote and so on)".
	So if there are 12 candidates, as there are in by-elections from time to time, it could go down to as low as one-twelfth of a vote. That is complicated and it leads to the proposition that somebody could win an election by one-twelfth of a vote, because you end up with one-twelfth of a vote being given. If number one and number two are equal and the twelfth candidate's preferences are given and it is a twelfth for one and none for the other, you win by one-twelfth of a vote. That strikes me as an absurd system of a very high degree of complexity. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has indentified a real problem in relation to AV which has to be addressed in the Bill, because it is a compulsory referendum. We can draw our own conclusions as to whether AV is the right system or not, but this does have to be addressed. While I recognise the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, points out, my own view is that the right course is to go with something that is clear, simple and practical, rather than a system that-

Lord Campbell-Savours: My noble and learned friend says that the system is complicated. How would it be complicated with electronic voting? There would be no manual intervention at all. It would all be sorted out by the computer run.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think that the count would necessarily be complicated; it is the explanation of "If you give me your third preferences, I will get one third of a vote". In the course of the counting, fractions of votes will be counted against individual candidates; that strikes me as complicated, lacking in clarity and implausible as far as the electorate are concerned. To be told that I have got two-thirds of a vote more than you seems to me to be an unconvincing electoral system. I do not know of any electoral system in the world where you can win by less than one vote, although maybe there are some. I suspect the reason why there are no systems where you can win by less than one vote-

Lord Campbell-Savours: There is one.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, from a sedentary position, is contemplating whether there is one.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: One of the valuable lessons that we learnt from the previous Government was that new computer systems cost fabulous sums of money and never seem to work properly.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think that we needed the previous Government to tell us that. Nor do I think that all computer systems did not work. I do not know where computer systems are involved heavily in counting at the moment, but I accept the basic proposition that eventually they will be.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I think my noble and learned friend has missed one of the merits of the system. If the canvasser goes to the door and says to the voter, "I'm not asking for you to give me a full vote, but if you just vote for me as your third preference, I will get one third of the vote", that is actually an incentive for those people who might worry that if they give their third preference weighted at 100 per cent in terms of value, they might actually be interfering with their first preference. I would have thought that that is quite a considerable argument.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is a matter of saying, "How much do you like me?" and being told, "Not enough to give you the whole of my vote". The answer could be maybe a quarter, a fifth or a sixth. The candidate says, "Unfortunately, there are only four candidates in this, so you can't give me a sixth". I do not think that it is realistic. I recognise the problem, but I do not favour the solution. I described the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, as a gem but what I meant was a pearl.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am not quite sure how to take that. I start by reassuring the House that although I have an interest in electoral systems, I cannot recall ever going to bed thinking about them. I doubt I will even do so tonight.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has put forward a system that would involve some fractional vote. As I read his amendment, at first I thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours understood it, that the second preference got half of a vote, the third preference got a third of a vote, the fourth preference a quarter of a vote, and so on. However, in the light of the comments the noble Lord made on 8 December, his intention may instead be that where there is no winner in the first round of counting, and a further round of counting is necessary, the value of any votes reallocated from the eliminated candidates to the candidates who are still in the count would be determined by the position the eliminated candidate had in the first round of counting. In other words, if the eliminated candidate finished fifth, the value of the reallocated vote would be one-fifth and so on. The fact that there is that dubiety in the amendment-when I first read it, I took it to mean the same as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, obviously did-underlines the complexity that arises.
	My noble friend Lord Lamont said that the important thing, in terms of simplicity for the voters, is that they are invited to number their candidates 1, 2, 3 and 4 and, if there is complexity, that is for the counters to work out. If we went down the road proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, there would be some complexity when we were being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman and we were trying to explain where the one-quarter vote and the one-fifth vote came into it. However, I also take the point that the noble Lords, Lord McAvoy and Lord Lipsey, and others made, that although at one level voters are invited to order their preferences as 1, 2, 3 and 4 so far as they wish, there nevertheless is a requirement that they have some understanding. They do not need to know all the complex details, but they need to have some understanding of how the system will work.
	The purpose of the alternative vote with the system that we are proposing is that it gives equal weight to votes that are still in the count. That meets the clear, simple and practical tests that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested that there should be. The amendment goes against that; it says that some votes should count for less. Where some would say that people "part company", I would suggest instead that there is a misunderstanding of the position in failing to make the distinction between a preference and a vote, or in somehow suggesting that if, for the sake of argument, the BNP came last and were first to be eliminated, it would be the second preferences of the BNP's vote that determined the outcome. In fact, it would be the voters' second preferences that determined it.
	It was said that everyone should have two votes and it is not right that, at the second count, someone has only one vote, whereas the person whose second preference has been transferred has two votes. In fact, at the second count, the person who expressed the first preference and who is still leading has a vote again. The vote still counts as a full vote in the second count.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: How can the Minister describe the situation where, let us say, the BNP voters' second preferences just push the top person over 50 per cent, as "50 per cent of the votes", when the other preferences of all the other candidates are ignored? That is not 50 per cent in any meaningful sense.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: It is the preferences of the votes allocated to those who are still in the count, as it were. If someone has been eliminated from the count, it is not the party's vote that is being transferred-it is the voter's preference that is still being allowed to have a value.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I think that the noble and learned Lord has missed the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, which is critical to the operation of AV. The noble Lord has hit it right on the head. The additional preferences, the second preferences, of those voters who voted BNP as their first preference, when transferred, could take the top candidate over the 50 per cent threshold and thereby secure the election of that candidate. At the same time all the other second preferences, or whichever preferences, of all the other candidates would be completely ignored. That is the central flaw in the AV system, which is why Conservatives should be opposing it. The only AV system that gets over that problem is the one that I designed-SV. It is built to avoid precisely that happening, because the second preferences are all transferred in one go to the top two candidates, and you avoid all that nonsense. The noble Lord hit it right on the head.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Because of that second count, everyone, other than the person who came bottom the first time, still has their first preference. It is the first preference that counts then, and it may be that the person who came top the first time gets elected or the person who came second takes over. Those people's first preference will still count. Some people say that you might prefer your second preferences over your first; that is a matter for the individual voter. However, this allows individuals to give their first preference to the party that they actually want to support, and then they can vote for a second preference, a third preference and so on.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Why should it be only the second preferences-those cast as the candidate at the bottom-that are the ones to take them over 50 per cent? Why just those? Why not all the others?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: That is the way that particular system works. It is the system we have used in this House for electing the Lord Speaker. I do not recall anyone challenging the validity of the system working for that purpose. It is the system that works in Scottish local government by-elections and I have never heard any suggestion that it is perverting the result.
	What it could do is potentially dissuade voters from exercising the wider choice that is offered by the alternative vote. If it may be suggested that their subsequent preferences are somehow not going to have any weight at all, they may be deemed to be wasted votes. I would hope there was some degree of consensus that, whatever system you wish to adopt, the idea of having a wasted vote is one we should seek to avoid. By the proposal put forward in this amendment, some votes, if they are down to fractions, cease to have the value which I should like to see-

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What if you have wasted a vote and vote for a candidate who does not succeed?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: We could go into the merits of the first past the post system and there are a considerable number of wasted votes for candidates who do not succeed. In some cases it can be up to 40, 50 or 60 per cent of votes for candidates who do not win. Under the present system, anyone who votes for a candidate who wins, which is more than a majority of one, is technically described as a wasted vote, too. We are getting into the debate of the first past the post system against the alternative system. That is a matter for the referendum campaign. We could go round the houses debating the relative merits of the system, as I will do during the referendum campaign, but what I am seeking to do for the purposes of this amendment is to indicate that the reallocated votes of the fractional votes imports a degree of complexity and it means that votes do not have full value in subsequent counts, which would happen under the system proposed in the Bill.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Some Members opposite seem to adjust the rules of the House as we go along. Up till now, when someone has got up the speaker goes down. I will watch it carefully in future.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, used again the election of the Lord Speaker as an example. Previously it was used by his colleagues who also used the election within a party of a leader. These are not party political elections, however, as between parties, as we saw when we ended up with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as the Lord Speaker. Within a party, it is not party political. Surely these are not parallels that can be drawn.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: To suggest that the election of a leader of a party is not political-I understand that it is not party political but maybe it will be factionally political within a particular party and therefore the comparison is apt. Also, as the noble Lord would recognise, Scottish local government by-elections are now conducted on an alternative vote basis and they are very party political.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: They are also eccentric and aberrant in some ways because, if you take a four-seat ward, as we have had recently in Edinburgh, you can get a councillor of one party which managed to scrape one seat in that four-seat ward, he retires but it is the party which got the three seats which manages to get the by-election success because it is the biggest party. So it is aberrant.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is again rehearsing the kind of arguments that we will no doubt exchange in some television or radio studio in the coming weeks and months. I thank him for giving me forewarning of the arguments that he proposes to adopt. With regard to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as I have indicated, we do not favour an approach that would involve a reallocation of votes on a fractional basis. There are practical considerations. Nor, I understand, does the Front Bench opposite. There could be complications for voters in understanding it. I take the point that all the voter has to do is go into the polling station and write 1, 2, 3, 4. Nevertheless, understanding is required. I am not aware of anywhere else that uses the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Therefore, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned Lord is right that I do not support this amendment but he is completely wrong to say that we should not debate the anomalies in the AV system that is being proposed. As we keep saying, this is a compulsory referendum so the system that is being adopted must be subject to rigorous scrutiny to see what its shortcomings and anomalies are. The points that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is making are inevitable when you are looking at the detail of a system.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I decided not to move two earlier amendments today. I wanted to concentrate on the main cause, which is this one and I freely admit is not run of the mill. I came across a reference-only a reference-to the system in a footnote to some text I read recently. I thought it was the solution. One way or another, the central flaw in AV has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. It will be incredibly difficult to explain to people.
	I am not arguing about the text; I know what I understood and I explained what I wanted. It is the vote for the person who comes last, whether they are third, fourth or fifth, that gets transferred. It is true that that is the only vote that gets transferred. I might be accused of being completely unfair but I look on that allocation as a new vote. The others have not been altered. These are new votes coming into the system. If there were seven candidates, the one coming seventh would be knocked out. I have assumed that the bottom one would be knocked out but sometimes it might be the bottom two. The reallocation of the second choices of the voters who voted for the candidate who came seventh would be new votes for the top six. In a way, it is not the same election. That is what is so unfair about it. Nobody else's second preference comes into play. As I say, there is an inherent difficulty in this system, which will be apparent only when we come to use it.

Lord Deben: Does the noble Lord agree, therefore, that there is an advantage in being a Monster Raving Loony Party voter? You automatically get two votes. They are two votes because the first was for the Monster Raving Loony Party and the second is for someone else, whereas every other voter has one vote because he does not change it at all. The argument stands constantly, which is why AV is such a silly system.

Lord Rooker: It is inherently difficult when you are asking people to go into the polling station and make their choices on a ballot paper, whether it is an optional system or not, without knowing what the outcome of the first choices will be. This is why the French have a two-round system. You can see what happens and adjust your vote accordingly. You do not get the chance to do that with this system; it is all or nothing when you put your preferences in. All I am saying is that there must be a fairer system than what is proposed. This will fall apart.
	I will conclude on this. Examples have been given of the Scottish by-elections. We have not tried this in 600 or 650 constituencies in every part of the country under the full glare and analysis of every local anorak. I am not an anorak; I resent that term, I must say. This system has not been exposed to what will happen in 2015, assuming five years and assuming this system. That is where it is likely to come apart and there will be a backlash. I am trying to put some more fairness in the system. I made the point earlier about the fairness in the constituencies, the equal numbers. It has to be apparent to people that what is proposed is a fairer system-I might argue about the detail, but I agree with that. This puts a bit of fairness into the way the votes are counted under this proposed AV system. It would not be my first choice but it is genuinely trying to put fairness into the system. I am not saying it is perfect and it would be complicated for the counters. If it is done by computers fair enough; it is not a problem but it might be difficult to explain. I have to say though that it is not half as difficult to explain as the paragraphs the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, read out when explaining the Government's views. I kept thinking, what will that sound like in a television studio?
	I can honestly say that I will not be returning to this amendment but I may come back to some of those I did not move. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
	Amendment 52 withdrawn.
	Amendment 52A
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	52A: Clause 9, page 7, line 6, at end insert-
	"( ) Any reallocation of votes referred to in subsection (3) shall only occur if the eliminated candidate received over 5% of the vote in the first round or the round before that candidate was eliminated."

Lord Beecham: My Lords, like most of your Lordships I do not go to bed dreaming of the alternative vote. In fact, at this hour and having got up today at 6 am to come here I have rather forgotten what going to bed is like at all.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I am a recent entrant to this House. Unlike him, I was never a Member in another place. I do not find the debates we have had on this Bill, particularly today's debate, in any way calculated to bring this House into disrepute. It has been a thoughtful, if somewhat protracted debate. Whether the Faustian compact which the parties opposite have entered into might bring politics into disrepute is of course another matter.
	One thing that surprised me today-as it has on previous occasions-is the remarkable claim that this Bill is somehow the greatest constitutional Bill ever brought since the Great Reform Act of 1832, which we celebrate in Newcastle by having a statue to Earl Grey who promoted that remarkable piece of legislation. Surely it is not to be compared with the extension of the franchise, first of all to all male voters and then eventually to all women voters, let alone the Parliament Act of 1911 which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, expatiated on with some passion during a previous debate. Nevertheless, we are where we are and we certainly still have much to discuss.
	I could not possibly compete with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and his mastery of the electoral consequences of a variety of systems, nor could I imagine acquiring the extensive knowledge that his research has produced. I would however suggest that he slightly errs in saying that Liberals and Liberal Democrats have opposed AV. In fact, 80 years ago this very month an agreement was reached between the then minority Labour Government and the Lloyd George Liberals to bring forward proposals for an alternative vote. I think they were overtaken by rather more dramatic events even than we have experienced recently within a few months of that date. It may have been a different system but it was AV.
	The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who has spoken about theoretical elections among Members on these Benches, will know as I do that the Labour Party has most of its elections conducted on the alternative vote system. Indeed, the use of that system deprived me of the opportunity of joining the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in another place some 35 years ago. I maintained the same vote in three ballots for a selection in Newcastle East, whereas the successful candidate eventually, one Michael Thomas who will be known and remembered fondly by some on the Benches opposite, succeeded in garnering the votes of the unsuccessful candidates. I do not complain about that. In fact, I remain in support of the alternative vote.
	I do that after 51 years of engagement in elections. I have been a candidate in council elections 16 times- 15 times successfully and once unsuccessfully in a parliamentary election. I have been an instructing solicitor in public inquiries into boundaries and I have given evidence at public inquiries into boundaries-an opportunity which will of course be denied me in future if the Bill goes through in its present form. It will be denied not only to me, which is hardly relevant, but to many other people as well. Nevertheless, I support the principle of the alternative vote.
	However, we come to the method. Under my amendment, we are back to the business of thresholds, which we discussed in another context earlier. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others, today and previously, to Churchill's dictum. Others more recently have also pronounced their concern that votes for very fringe-party candidates may then be redistributed. I heard David Blunkett, for example, expressing that concern on the radio, and others have made that point.
	The amendment tries to minimise that effect. It points to a threshold only above which votes would be redistributed and votes for candidates receiving very small percentages of the vote would not be redistributed. That seems to be a simpler way of dealing with matters. It is comparable to the position of the deposit in parliamentary elections and is preferable, if I may say so, to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rooker, because, on his formulation, in a three-way marginal such as Oldham, the votes, as it turned out at the last election, are split almost exactly three ways. On the formulation of my noble friend, someone who is only 2,000 votes behind the successful candidate, but very close in percentage terms to achieving a third of the votes, would have had their votes transferred, with only one third being valid, despite their votes having been very close to the candidate with the highest number of votes. That does not seem to be a sensible approach.
	My amendment would in this case not have affected the outcome as between those three candidates, but it is a way of meeting at least some of the objections to the proposition that Monster Raving Loony Party candidates, or the BNP or whatever, might unduly influence the outcome of an election, having achieved only a small percentage of the vote. That is a way of improving the AV system. It is simpler for the electorate, it is simpler also in terms of the count and does not do any violence to the principle of the alternative vote. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: I must inform your Lordships that if the amendment is agreed, I cannot call manuscript Amendment 52AA, by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I can understand the case that my noble friend Lord Beecham is making and it is seductive. However, it removes some of the most desirable features of the AV system, which is designed to produce a much wider choice for voters. That includes, for example, the possibility of voting for a party that really has no chance and which you know will come bottom of the polls, without at the same time wasting your vote. There might be, for example, a local campaigner with a specific goal which you strongly support, but you do not necessarily want to waste your vote entirely by supporting that candidate if there is a danger that it will be eliminated. The amendment means that it is less likely, rather than not likely, that the winning candidate will get 51 per cent of the vote. As we know, under the present system, only a third of Members of the House of Commons received as much as half of their electorate's votes. We do not have an exact figure as to what that would increase to under AV, but if you said 86 per cent or 90 per cent, you would probably be right. The amendment would reduce that back down again nearer to the present third. For those reasons, I cannot support my noble friend in his well meant amendment.

Lord McAvoy: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham but only in the context of where we are with that system. I believe very strongly that the first past the post system should stay and I do not want anyone to say-although, of course, I cannot stop anyone saying it-that supporting the amendment in the context of where we are necessarily means that I am deserting my support for first past the post.
	This is a modest amendment. On the other hand, romantic candidates, Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidates and the "independent with a cause" candidate can all sound okay but, in a serious parliamentary democracy, is it right that such a small proportion of the vote should be used elsewhere? We are running serious elections for serious and responsible elected positions and, although having the freedom to stand for election and to campaign and so on is an absolute right, I do not think that that type of candidate who polls less than 5 per cent of the vote should be allowed to distort the electoral system and the democratic process. Then again, I keep asking myself why people get involved in that kind of party when it is all a lot of nonsense. Nevertheless, speaking as a realistic politician, I have to say that the amendment is before us and it needs to be discussed. However, if anyone wishes to use their charms on me, I am still willing to be convinced by an objection to my noble friend's amendment.
	My noble friend Lord Lipsey is great to listen to and I admire him. He is a formidable person but I do not think that he came up with any reason why the amendment should be opposed. He came up with an intellectual reason, and it is right and proper that that is aired. However, we have to take the real world into account and I do not think it is right for a party with a small percentage of the vote to distort the vote. In the context of what we are discussing, I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment of my noble friend Lord Beecham basically says that, if a candidate gets 5 per cent or less of the vote, the second preference votes for that candidate are not reallocated. I do not think that it necessarily follows that, if you get a low vote, your second preference votes should be any less valid than if you get a higher percentage of the vote. In certain circumstances, one can imagine Green Party candidates, for example, getting a very low vote-well below 5 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, in regarding Green Party candidates as more worthy than those of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, is effectively making a value judgment about parties based only on the number of votes that they receive. It seems to me that it is very difficult to see a logical or intellectual basis for saying that 5 per cent or below is not an acceptable figure. Is there a political argument that says that 5 per cent or less is the sort of figure that extremist parties get? Possibly there is but, again, I believe that in relation to an electoral system it is dangerous to start characterising people whom you do not like as "extremist". Of course, we all regard the BNP as extremist but there are other parties that some of us would regard as extremist and others would not. Therefore, although I understand the purpose of my noble friend's amendment, I do not think that it stacks up, so I am afraid we will not support it.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I agree with much of the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Just because the total is a small figure, there is no reason why the second preference votes should carry any less value. It is also important to reflect, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, that the purpose of a system is to provide a wide choice for voters. Under this system, every vote has equal value and is allocated to the candidate who is ranked highest in the preferences marked on the ballot paper and who is still in the contest. It is only fair to assume that in a second round the person marked as the first preference is the one whom the voter wishes to see come first, and it is important that that vote has full value.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Can the Minister help me? I have had a quick look through the Bill and I cannot find any provision, although it is probably carried over from existing legislation, where candidates have to pay deposits and, if they get less than a percentage of the vote, they will lose that deposit. Is that provision still there? If that is the case, I am afraid my noble and learned friend, Lord Falconer, might have to rethink because, if someone is going to lose their deposit, why should the votes be transferred? The threshold for losing the deposit was set at that level for a particular reason. I do not remember when it was set and what the reason was, but presumably it was that the candidate had failed to convince enough electors.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Where you take someone's deposit away because they get less than 5 per cent, you are in effect "punishing" the candidate for standing because he could not get enough support. You would be wrong to punish the people who vote for him.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble and learned Lord virtually took the words out of my mouth. There is a difference in that, if there is a penalty on the candidate, it does not follow that the penalty should then be on the voter who has in all good faith expressed a second preference. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made the point that it could be a way to penalise smaller parties, or indeed, as he put it, local campaigns. Let us remember that at recent general elections in this country and at a Scottish election in 2003 a candidate posing hospital closures won. It might not necessarily have been obvious at the outset that these people were going to get far more than 5 per cent, but the fact that they are perhaps not mainstream in no way means that they should be devalued. It may well put people off from voting for candidates who appear to be coming from a local campaign, or let us say a non-mainstream party, if it was thought in some way that the second preference was not going to count. The object, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, is to broaden choice, and I fear that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would not contribute to that broader choice. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 52A withdrawn.
	Amendment 52AA not moved.
	Amendments 52B to 53 not moved.
	Amendment 53A
	 Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton
	53A: Clause 9, page 7, line 16, leave out "publicly"

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this takes us to a wholly new and equally riveting topic: namely, the process of making the results public in the course of an election count.
	I refer your Lordships-those who are still awake-to the following:
	"If no candidate is elected (as mentioned in rule 45A(2)) at the first stage of counting, the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information ... the number of first-preference votes obtained by each candidate ... which candidate was eliminated; the number of rejected ballot papers",
	so we will have a very different series of announcements during the course of an election. Obviously what happens now is that the returning officer says what votes everyone has in the first past the post system. We know who has won and who has lost.
	On the basis of new Section 45B(1), I envisage after the first round of counting, in which most prospective parliamentary candidates will not get 50 per cent of the votes, that there will be a public announcement in each constituency of where it has got to. I take that from the words:
	"If no candidate is elected ... the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information ... the number of first-preference votes ... which candidate was eliminated",
	and so on. The public will therefore know how the vote is going in each constituency and where it has got to. My knowledge of how the system worked most recently was in the Labour Party leadership election when they went through the whole calculation and then announced what had happened at each stage, so there was transparency about what happened at each stage but it occurred only at the end of the process.
	First, how do the Government envisage this system will work? In particular, do they envisage that the returning officer will make an announcement after each round of counting? Secondly, what is the purpose of doing it in this way? Thirdly, why not wait until the end of the count to make public how it went at each stage? I should make it clear that I do not for one moment suggest that the individual candidates and their representatives should not be told how each round has gone after each round so that they can legitimately question any aspect of what has happened in that round, but I would be keen to know what the reasons were. That may be perfectly justified, but my goodness me it will make it an extremely complicated and long drawn-out evening and next morning if you insist-I am not saying that this is the wrong thing, I just want to hear the reasons-that at each stage there be a public announcement of where it has got to. This amendment seeks to probe the Government's picture of how this will work, their thinking behind it and how much it will elongate the process.

Lord King of Bridgwater: Do I understand the noble and learned Lord to be actually suggesting that instead of this being made publicly available, it should be given to the representatives of the candidates so that it can be done by leak?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: A lot of information is given to candidates and their representatives at the moment that is not leaked, entirely legitimately, and not made public. I would like to hear the Government's position on this.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, these amendments provide that if no candidate is elected at the first stage of counting-that is, if no candidate secures more than 50 per cent of first-preference votes-the returning officer would not make publicly available certain specified information about the state of play at that stage, including the number of first preference votes obtained by each candidate and which candidate was eliminated, but would make the information available to candidates and their representatives only. I have a lot of sympathy with the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord King. It would soon leak out, and I think it is far better that it is done publicly.
	The clause is not prescriptive, so it is up to the returning officer in each case how he or she will make that information public. The purpose is so that there is transparency. There is no requirement for an announcement to be made, although the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that was recently not moved would have required a public announcement to have been made, and the specified information, which would include the details of the number of votes obtained by each candidate and the candidate who had been eliminated, could well be displayed, for example at the end of each counting stage, in written form or could be relayed on television screens at a count venue.
	I was not present at any count on the morning of the last Scottish election because I was in radio studios with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but I understand that at least at one count that my wife attended in Orkney the votes-based on a slightly different system-were being shown on a screen as they were being counted, so it is possible for that information to be made available. I can make it very clear that this is to ensure that the candidate, the media, accredited observers and other persons present at the count are aware of the state of play at the end of the counting stage and that the count is conducted in an open and transparent manner. I hope with that reassurance that it is intended to promote transparency, that it is not prescriptive, that it is a matter for the returning officer as to how that information is made public and that there are ways of doing it in written form as well as by making an announcement, that the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I found that a helpful and clear description which, from the sound of it, is a sensible way of doing this. However, I shall read in Hansard what he has said before making a final decision.
	Amendment 53A withdrawn.
	Amendments 53B and 53C not moved.
	Amendment 53D
	 Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton
	53D: Clause 9, page 7, leave out lines 33 to 42

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 9(4) reads:
	"The Minister may by order make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation (whenever passed or made) that are consequential on amendments made by this section or Schedule 10".
	It gives the Government a power to amend any section of primary legislation or secondary legislation in order to give effect to these provisions. Normally, we would expect to see the provisions that are being amended so that Parliament has an opportunity to consider them. Why are we not seeing the respective provisions that are being amended, and does this include the power to amend Acts of Parliament made after the passage of this Act? I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I can reassure the noble and learned Lord and the Committee that the breadth of the power is limited to amendments that are consequential to the changes being made by Clause 9 and Schedule 10. It is envisaged that in order to introduce the alternative vote system, should that be the wish of the referendum, amendments will be required to provisions in existing secondary legislation which concern the conduct of United Kingdom parliamentary elections. For example, changes will need to be made to certain forms that are prescribed for use at a UK parliamentary election including the poll card issued to electors prior to polling day to provide them with information on how to exercise their vote at the election, and the postal voting statement which postal voters must complete and return with their postal vote, and which again includes information about casting their votes. These forms are set out in secondary legislation. While we believe that all the necessary primary legislative provisions are in the Bill, it seems sensible not to have our hands tied. This power therefore covers any possible consequential changes to primary legislation that may be deemed necessary to implement the alternative vote.
	I can offer a reassurance to your Lordships' House that, as Clause 9 is currently drafted, before making an order under subsection (4), the Minister would be required to consult the Electoral Commission, which would give an independent view on any change. Such an order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and would therefore have to be debated and approved in each House. I can confirm that it could allow amendments to be made to Acts passed before and after the Bill, but as I have indicated, this is for technical issues and not to change any matters of policy. In our memorandum concerning the delegated powers in the Bill for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we covered the order-making power in Clause 9.

Lord Campbell-Savours: If, by any chance, the Government were to decide before May that the system they have selected should be tweaked in some way, that would require a change to primary legislation. Does not subsection (4) actually preclude such a change being possible in the event that it needed to be made? Should not subsection (4) be a little looser to allow for the possibility that the Government may want to tweak the system in some way?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I do not think that that would be an appropriate use of the power. It is important that when Parliament determines what the system should be, that is the system which is put to the people in the referendum and should not be tweaked. As I have indicated, this makes provision for amendments to primary or secondary legislation to be made that are consequential and necessitated by this clause or by Schedule 10. As I have indicated, they are related to things like the poll card or the information that goes with postal votes.
	Just before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, intervened, I was going to end by saying that we have not been made aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has made any critical or adverse comments in respect of these provisions. We believe that they are necessary and appropriate. In the event of a yes vote in the referendum, they will facilitate the implementation of the alternative vote.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I quite understand the noble and learned Lord's position in relation to secondary legislation. Clause 9(7) states:
	"An order under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament".
	So we will get an opportunity to debate it.
	Does the noble and learned Lord have in mind some provisions of primary legislation? He rather glossed over primary legislation. If changes in primary legislation are envisaged, why are we not being told what they are so that we can address them head on?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As I indicated-perhaps I did not make it clear enough-we believe that the necessary primary legislative provisions are in the Bill and therefore we do not have anything in mind. I have indicated some of the provisions which are in secondary legislation, but we believe that the primary legislative provisions are already in the Bill. However, it seemed sensible to ensure that we did not have our hands tied if something was to arise.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is an interesting answer. Does the noble and learned Lord think it would be sensible not to include this power in relation to primary legislation? It is dangerous to include in a Bill a power to amend primary legislation when you have no primary legislation in mind but think it might be useful later on-particularly in relation to future legislation where you think you might have made a mistake and you then want to use the power to amend it. It appears to circumvent the important scrutiny that this House and the other place give to primary legislation. Will the noble and learned Lord think again about primary legislation? I am happy with secondary legislation.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. As I have indicated, the measure would relate to consequential amendments, but I am prepared to give it further consideration as regards primary legislation. As I said, it is there so that we do not find ourselves in a position where it is discovered that primary legislation could somehow prevent effective implementation of the affirmative vote in a referendum. I shall certainly reflect on what the noble and learned Lord has said with regard to primary legislation and I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the basis of the generous assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that he will consider what I have said in relation to primary legislation, of course I shall withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 53D withdrawn.
	Amendment 54
	 Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
	54: Clause 9, page 7, line 42, at end insert ", Scottish Parliament, National Assembly of Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly"

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am pleased that we have managed to get to Amendment 54. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, shares my pleasure. I should declare an interest because I am a Member still of the Scottish Parliament, elected by the bizarre election system of AMS, the additional member system.
	I remind those who are not too familiar with the Scottish electoral system that 73 Members are elected by first past the post-that is 71 for all the mainland constituencies and Orkney and Shetland have the special advantage of a having constituency each. That should please the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. So 73 are elected by first past the post based on the votes that individual candidates got in each of the constituencies, and then 56 Members are elected-seven Members for each of eight regions-on a top-up basis based on the vote obtained by the party in that region. I would find it very interesting if someone could explain to me-I ask the Minister because he was the acting First Minister as well as the Deputy First Minister-how I managed to get elected because I could then explain it to the electorate. I am not sure how the votes came to be transferred to me and, ultimately, I was the last person elected on the Lothian list.
	I do not think the electorate understood. It was a fascinating campaign. When I used to stand in south Ayrshire, in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, as a Member of Parliament, I spent right up to-and certainly not beyond-the limit of the election allocation. In spite of the fact that my majority in 1997 was over 21,000, I still campaigned very hard, went around every part of the constituency, and fought a huge campaign putting my name before the electorate in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. When I got elected to the list in Lothians, I spent nothing on the election campaign. We did not run a huge campaign for me, though we did for the Labour Party and for the constituency members. It is a bizarre system, which even the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who was one of the main architects of the system-it is a pity that he is not here tonight-regrets having introduced and would like to see revisited. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has come round to that point of view yet-I hear the muttering of the Leader of the House-but it indicates how unwise it is to go into systems without fully realising their implications, because there are huge, unintended consequences.
	I have tabled the amendment because the Scottish Parliament was deeply concerned and offended by the fact that it was not consulted about the date on which the UK Government intended to hold the referendum on the alternative vote. The Scottish Government felt the same way-I am more concerned about the Parliament than the Government, but their response was the same. Here we are dealing with Schedule 10. In it it is suggested that the Electoral Commission, and no one else, should be consulted. Until recently-a few months ago-there was no one on the Electoral Commission with any experience of either elections or referenda. That situation has been improved with the addition of four members, including my noble friend Lord Kennedy, George Reid and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who is sitting opposite. The commission's knowledge of elections and referendums has been strengthened; I welcome her and my noble friend's membership of it. However, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly should be consulted as well. They are packed full of people with experience of elections and referenda and would be able to offer wisdom in addition to that now offered by the Electoral Commission.

Lord McAvoy: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of my noble friend's amendment. To one such as me who has been in this House for four or five months, it certainly gives rise to a new experience. It may sound pretentious or boastful, but my instinct tells me that some kind of watershed has been breached tonight, and not for the better. Why are we debating this amendment at this time of night? I do not think that it is the best time to be discussing legislation, and never have done. In the other place, it was one of these things that Oppositions would do to strut their stuff and Governments would do the same. After a decent couple of nights, both sides would behave themselves. Today is unique because we are debating this issue at almost one o'clock in the morning. We have to look at why and how we arrived here. A big chunk of time was taken out today by three Statements. I am not complaining about that, because they were very important, and it was right that the House should have the benefit of listening to Ministers.
	As I understand it, there was co-operation, through the usual channels-if I am wrong on this, I am sure I will get pounced upon. Because of the three Statements, and in co-operation with the Government, we waived the right to a fourth Statement. Nobody has pounced upon me yet, so I think that there must be something in it. That shows, in my book, that the usual channels on the Opposition's side was responsible for saying that as there already going to be a chunk of time taken out of today's deliberations, therefore it was a reasonable and fair-a much used, or abused word in here at the moment-to waive the right to the fourth Statement. I think it was right that the Statements were heard; I respected the Government for that. They are under pressure to get the Bill through, yet they have still lived up to their responsibilities as a Government and made these three Statements.
	I do not know what has happened since then. I am not party, first hand, to what has been said and done tonight, but I know enough about the place, because traditionalists such as my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes have drummed into me the importance of the conventions here and of the conventions being honoured and recognised.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has commented that I have taken to the place like a duck to water, which means that I have supported the conventions up till now; I agreed with them and saw the need for them because this place is special. I know that he was gently making fun of me and that is fine, that is part of the routine. I hope he was-he did not agree when I said that. I assume that it was said in a jocular way and I certainly accept that. If you are going to poke fun, you have to be able to take some fun back.
	However, my understanding, again from the usual channels-my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton mentioned this at the Dispatch Box, so I am not breaking any confidences-was that there was an understanding/agreement, that going past 10 o'clock would be fine, but that we would finish at 10.40 pm, which I understand is something called taxi time. I do not know what that means; I take it that that is for the staff. When my noble friend Lord Bassam mentioned that, the Leader of the House just completely ignored him, completely bulldozed him and said we would finish the clause. I do not think that that is right. If there is timetabling to be done-I do not know all the rules in this place, but I will learn over time-would it not have been possible for the Government to have given notice that they wanted extra time so that folk could prepare?

Lord Rennard: I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but after listening to him for the last five minutes or so, could I ask him whether his arguments are for or against the amendment of his noble friend?

Lord McAvoy: I thank the noble Lord for that. I am trying to explain the context of why we have reached here and why I intend to take time, without repetition, being boring or whatever.
	I have left the Liberals alone up till now, but the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, invites me in. How can any Liberal, with their high sense of duty, their superiority complex over the years, looking down at mere politicians, not only of the Labour Party, but of the Tory Party-they are a cut above, intellectually and spiritually pure-endorse, support and even vigorously lead the behaviour tonight? They ought to be ashamed of themselves, because not only have they endorsed it, they have given enthusiastic leadership to it and it is a breach of the conventions of the House.
	My noble friend rightly mentioned the Scottish Parliament. In passing, and he did not get pulled up for it, he mentioned how Orkney and Shetland had two seats in the Scottish Parliament. I remember at the time thinking, "That's okay for them isn't it?" How anybody can advocate and support that position and maintain a credible reputation is beyond me. Certainly, on this side of the House, it is okay for that part of the world, part of my own country, to get preferential treatment on the basis of two seats in the Scottish Parliament and influence the governance of the Scottish Parliament.
	The Scottish Parliament is there and it is coming to be respected more by the Scottish people. To be treated in a cack-handed, offhand way by the Westminster Government only gives succour to the nationalists and separatists and those who think that independence will carry a crescent of prosperity for Scotland, the Nordic countries and the Republic of Ireland.
	It was said that the Electoral Commission should be consulted/notified and not the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament was not even consulted about the date of the referendum. That is a complete insult and an offhand way of doing things. It was under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister-a Liberal. There is a situation where a Liberal has played a leading role in insulting the Scottish Parliament.
	It is not the best kept secret that my personal position prior to Scottish Labour Party decisions and the position of the relevant constituency Labour Party was of complete, total and utter opposition to the foundation of a Scottish Parliament because we saw it as a slippery road to separation. We are a unionist constituency party and all our representatives are unionists and always have been. Behaviour such as has been indulged in by the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of this Tory-led Government has shown that they will damage the union.
	I can sense from the Scottish non-political public that there is resentment about that. I will be quite honest about this. Scotland is not one homogeneous nation in every single sense of the word. There are different attitudes in each area. I think I am an average west of Scotland person. I would certainly say that I am not Glaswegian. We are a bit contrary in a sense because as an area we might be critical of the Scottish Parliament. We may be critical of some decisions and the way it sometimes behaves. We may even say, "I wish it wasn't there". Sometimes the west of Scotland takes that attitude. But any insult slung at the Scottish Parliament from somebody from outside the area, especially from outside Scotland and-without being racist in any way because I am British and Scottish-especially from England, gets the contrary side of the west of Scotland people. They then start defending the Scottish Parliament and take umbrage and exception to the behaviour of any critical comments or attacks on it coming from outside Scotland, especially from England. They give succour to the Scottish Nationalist Party and separatists.
	For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, if he is listening, I fully support my noble friend's amendment. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should be recognised. It has been elected and to me that is above all else. It should be given a place in Scottish public life. Quite clearly, it has not been by this Government and not by the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall very briefly intervene and just make a comment before this debate closes this morning. This amendment would provide for making an order to amend the primary or secondary legislation consequential on amendments made by this clause. Any such award would have to be the subject of consultation with the Electoral Commission and also with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. The question is, "Why consultation?". I shall address my remarks to the two new noble Lords elevated to this House today, the noble Lords, Lord Lingfield and Lord Dobbs. This is a bit of a baptism of fire for them, really; they must be wondering what they have come into. It is a very good question, and the answer is very simple. We are dealing with a Bill that has been the subject of no consultation whatever. There was no inquiry, no prior scrutiny and no real notice of what was coming, and we object. We are now scrutinising this legislation line by line. Much of this could have been avoided if we had been through a proper process. What those two noble Lords are now seeing is just an abuse of Parliament by way of introducing a Bill in this way. I would advise them-and one hopes that they will stay here for many years to come-that if ever they are in a position to influence events in future, to advise their colleagues not to introduce legislation in this way in the future. Because this will go on for weeks, and only because the process that led to this legislation was wrong. That is all that I have to say.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is that before making an order under Clause 9(4), which allows the Government to,
	"make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation ... that are consequential on amendments made by this section or Schedule 10".
	At the moment, the Minister has to consult the Electoral Commission. Inevitably, amendments made under Clause 9(4) could affect the position in relation to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. As to how they might affect primary legislation-I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, looking troubled by that. He has just said very candidly that he has no idea what primary legislation might be amended by using Clause 9(4). His inability to understand that it might affect the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly is surprising, I have to say.
	Before you produce an order that amends primary legislation, which currently cannot be identified-I am not criticising the noble and learned Lord for that-and which may not even be passed, because it may include future legislation, what is wrong with consulting the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly? We have had read to us the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly on a number of occasions about the fact that they were not consulted about the date of the referendum, which is taking place on the same day as the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections. They were plainly upset by that. What is the purpose of not consulting? What is the anxiety about consulting? We are talking about a national electoral system here, and a national vote. Surely the Scottish Parliament might have views that could be taken into account. I ask the noble and learned Lord to take that position into account. Points have been made about what has happened this evening. It is four minutes past one now. My understanding of how the House operates is that the Government Whip and Leader consult and then decide what to do. The Leader of the House today appeared not even to consult his own Chief Whip about sitting until four minutes past one. The reason I say that is because I am told by the Opposition Chief Whip that the noble Baroness was proposing that we went on for one more amendment. It might well have been sensible to go on to four minutes past one, but we have done it without, for example, giving the staff warning in advance and without there being proper consultation. All I say to the Leader of the House, who is much liked in the House, is please consult before going on till five past one.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has invited me to give a description of the working of the Scottish Parliament voting system. I will resist that. I do not think that it is necessary. He came to be elected, I suspect, because more Labour members lost their first past the post seats than he had anticipated in the Lothian region. If he has any queries about the system, it is a system which of course he agreed in the constitutional convention. He was a member of the Government that brought it forward and passed it as indeed that Government proposed in primary legislation separate seats for Orkney and Shetland, which I certainly supported, but it was of course a measure which was brought forward in a Bill from a Labour Government. What we are dealing with-

Lord McAvoy: Yes, of course it was agreed at the time, and there were many pressures for it, not least the inducement to the noble and learned Lord-I do not mean illegal or anything improper-as I understand it, made by the leader of the Labour Party, the late Donald Dewar, that Orkney and Shetland would get separate seats; of course that was agreed at the time. But does the Minister still think it fair, in an atmosphere where everything has been quoted as fair, that the area that he used to represent gets special treatment compared to mine?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The previous Labour Government did a wonderful job when they brought forward the proposals for the Scotland Bill, which I was happy to support, and which indeed were endorsed overwhelmingly by the Scottish people in a referendum. But the effect of the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be that, before any order was made under Clause 9(4), the Minister would be required to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, in addition, of course, to the Electoral Commission. As I indicated in my response to the previous amendment, the kind of changes that are anticipated under this order-making power are for matters such as the information that goes on the polling card; information that would go with a postal voting statement; matters which currently reflect the first past the post system, but obviously would need to be changed with an alternative vote, should that be the will of the electorate in the referendum.
	In all fairness, I am not sure that that is high on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly, or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Voting systems for UK parliamentary elections is a reserved matter. It was a matter of common ground in the Act that was put forward by the previous Labour Government, which I was happy to support and was supported by the Scottish people; the Government of Wales Act was supported by the Welsh people in a referendum; likewise for Northern Ireland, where it was agreed that UK parliamentary elections are reserved.
	It is not necessary, therefore, for the UK Government to be subject to a statutory requirement to consult the devolved Parliament and Assemblies before making an order, which will be of a technical nature. We are not aware of any similar requirement to consult the devolved Administrations in respect of existing aspects of electoral law relating to UK parliamentary elections.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Would they be consulted?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I was just going on to say that I accept that when the United Kingdom Government develop proposals in relation to UK parliamentary elections, it is important that issues affecting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considered as part of the process. The practice of the Cabinet Office, which leads on electoral policy issues, is to work closely with colleagues in the territorial departments-the Scotland Office, the Wales Office, the Northern Ireland Office-on policy proposals. They would be able to highlight any concerns or issues affecting the particular part of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that, if the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament had particularly strong views on the wording of a polling card that would be taken into account but I do not believe that it is necessary given the fact that this is a wholly reserved matter. It has been accepted on all sides that it is a wholly reserved matter that requires a statutory requirement. The Electoral Commission is in a different position, because the Electoral Commission has a host of responsibilities with regard to the material that is published and goes out in association with an election. As I indicated, I am sure that if representations were received from the Welsh National Assembly, they would be considered on their merits, but on a matter which is entirely the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government, a statutory requirement to consult is not necessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy and for his careful and clear explanation. He mentioned that if the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament had particularly strong views, even on a matter that is wholly the responsibility of the United Kingdom, they would be taken account of. I do not know if he was in at Question Time today-no, it was when the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, repeated a Statement about the immigration bar. The Minister will know from his own experience that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are very exercised about the particular concerns of Scotland in relation to imposing an immigration bar, but, when I asked the noble Baroness whether the Scottish Government had been consulted, she did not even know.
	That goes against the kind of assurance that the Minister has given. I am sure that he is genuine and that he is right, but there are people like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones-I do not know if she has ever been to Scotland; she certainly seems to know very little about it-who do not really pay much attention to what is happening in Scotland. This is a matter of importance. I hope that the Minister, since he has a wider responsibility than just this Bill, will ensure that some of the departments are taking account of Scottish issues.
	My noble friend Lord McAvoy raised a number of issues, particularly in relation to what has happened tonight. I ask him to give some sympathy to the position of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. Can you imagine how difficult it must be for him when every time he goes to a Cabinet meeting or bumps into David Cameron in the Lobby and has to explain why he is not managing to get his legislation through? I understand the difficulty that he is in, and it serves him right. No, I sympathise with him. However, I hope that he will also genuinely understand-just as I genuinely understand the pressures that he is under-our concern for parliamentary democracy and scrutiny, which are of absolute importance. He has been on this side of the House often enough, and he will be again-sooner, probably, than he realises. So I hope that he will take account of that.
	I welcome the new Members. I am sure that they did not know what to expect. One of them has written a novel about this place, which is how I know there is a toilet behind the Throne; but for that, I would not have known. You learn a lot of interesting things, and I hope that he has learnt some tonight. I really am tempted to push this to a vote, to give them the opportunity on their first day to go through the Lobby, get their name down and get their tick to say that they have participated in the vote. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greenland-is it Greenland? Is it Lord Green of Shuttland? I see that the noble Lord is equally enthusiastic about having a voice, since he would be one of the Tellers; I see his happy face every time I go through the Lobby.
	I am tempted to vote on this. However, because of the clear and convincing explanation that the Minister gave, and because my noble friend Lady Browning, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and George Reid are on the Electoral Commission now, I have much more faith in it better representing some of our interests. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 54 withdrawn.
	Clause 9 agreed.
	House resumed.

House adjourned at 1.14 am.